Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Tuesday 20 June.

GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 20 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Environment Agency

Mr. Alan W. Williams: When he last met the chairman of the Environment Agency to discuss the performance of the agency; and what matters were discussed. [123989]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I hold quarterly bilaterals with the chairman to discuss the agency's performance in England. At our last bilateral on 24 February, we discussed the following: priorities for the agency, developing the agency's relationship with Ministers and the Department, and handling complaints and board and staff appointments.

Mr. Williams: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Environment Agency, will he discuss with him the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs on the Environment Agency—a hard-hitting report? Part of the report deals with fly-tipping. Attention is drawn to the appalling abuse of the landfill tax by cowboy firms fly-tipping domestic, industrial and building waste. If the Environment Agency argues that it needs more resources, which it will, will my right hon. Friend obtain from the Chancellor a fraction of the abundant proceeds of the landfill tax to tackle that serious problem?

Mr. Meacher: Yes, we are extremely concerned in the light of the Select Committee's comments on numerous issues, particularly about the licensing exemptions, and in

the light of revelations in "Dispatches" and the article in The Guardian. We are reviewing the situation as a matter of urgency and I shall make a statement as soon as I can. The Ecotec consultancy has examined the matter on our behalf, and recommended that charges be levied in order to pay for regular Environment Agency inspections. I am concerned about the abuse of licensing exemptions, and I have every intention of cracking down on it.

Mr. Eric Pickles: Next time the Minister meets the chairman, will he raise the question of the agency's responsibility for flood defences? He may recall that some years ago my constituency suffered a flash flood in which properties were swept away, since which time the agency has regularly cleared Stanford Hall brook. It has ceased to do so over the past two years, with the excuse that it has higher priorities. Surely that is a false economy? The reason why my constituency has not suffered flooding recently is that the brook is kept clear. Does it not make more sense to prevent flooding than to deal with the problems afterwards?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. It is not my direct responsibility in regard to the Environment Agency; it is a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I shall draw the specific details to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister, and I am sure that he will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I understand the view that charges should be imposed on some of the people involved in landfill, but does my right hon. Friend accept that with regard to fly-tipping, charges are irrelevant? What is needed is the effective prosecution of those who are spoiling urban and rural landscapes.

Mr. Meacher: Again, I strongly agree. That is part of the review that is taking place. There has unquestionably been some increase in fly-tipping, although I think that it is not as great as many people believe. Most of the fly-tipping is of household waste, and there is no levying of landfill tax for household waste. However, it remains an issue, and in some areas there has been increased degradation of the countryside, which is one of the subjects of the review.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Further to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the way in which the Environment Agency deals with flooding problems, particularly at Lindfield in my constituency, where there have been continual problems? The matter continues to be batted back and forth between the Environment Agency and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter, to see whether he is entirely satisfied with the way in which the Environment Agency carries out its duties in that regard, and what could be done to improve the speed and facility with which such matters can be drawn to a conclusion?

Mr. Meacher: I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. As he implied, the problem is the relationship between MAFF and the


Environment Agency. That is not my responsibility, but again, I will draw the hon. Gentleman's perfectly reasonable point to the Ministry's attention and ensure that he gets an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — Coastal Towns

Shona McIsaac: What progress the Government are making in reducing disadvantage in coastal towns. [123991]

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The Government are continuing to address the needs of disadvantaged areas, including coastal towns, through national and regeneration programmes. A consultation framework on the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal was published by the social exclusion unit in April.

Shona McIsaac: While I welcome such initiatives as the single regeneration budget and neighbourhood renewal in tackling disadvantage in coastal towns, may I suggest a course of action that could have a dramatic impact on residents in Grimsby and Cleethorpes—a revision of council tax bands? With 50 per cent. of properties in band A, that band is far too wide. In our area, we need new, lower bands so that the most disadvantaged in my community pay less council tax.

Ms Armstrong: I appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend has continued to push for her area. I am sure that that has had something to do with the successful SRB funding for the area. As she knows, the Government continually keep under review how council tax is working. A number of authorities and organisations have asked that we consider banding, especially that of band A, because people who live in mobile homes, for example, feel that it is an extensive band. We shall continue to consider the matter, but I cannot promise my hon. Friend action this side of the general election.

Mr. John Bercow: Given the importance of tourism to the generation of prosperity and to the reduction of disadvantage in coastal towns, will the right hon. Lady take the opportunity comprehensively to rubbish the report produced by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, entitled, "Rural Economies", which advocated the imposition of a tax on restaurants and hotels in rural areas?

Ms Armstrong: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is all over the place. I know that there is not a coastal town in his constituency.

Dr. Jack Cunningham: As for helping coastal towns, will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that whether it is a question of aiding tourism or economic development, transport and communications have an important part to play? When can we hear some decisions about improvements to the A595 in west Cumbria, which are critical to the future economic and social well-being of coastal towns in the borough of Copeland?

Ms Armstrong: My right hon. Friend is concerned with particular issues in the coastal area of Cumbria that he represents. It is one of the most beautiful constituencies

in the country, but it has severe problems. I know that my ministerial colleagues in the transport part of the Department are continually considering demands for roads and for improving transport, especially to areas of deprivation. I know that they will have heard what my right hon. Friend has to say.

Oral Answers to Questions — Waste Incinerators

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: What representations he has received concerning the construction of new waste incinerators. [123992]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I have received many representations on all of the policies in the new waste strategy.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Given the latest evidence from the United States, which confirms the views of experts at the Imperial Cancer Research Foundation that the release of dioxins by incinerator plants into the atmosphere poses a serious threat of cancer, does the Minister recognise the concerns of my constituents in north Guildford that no new incinerator plant should be built in Britain until this threat of cancer has been properly investigated by British experts; and the Minister can give absolute reassurance that the threats can be discounted?

Mr. Meacher: We believe that incinerators form a necessary though probably small part of the waste management strategy. It is impossible otherwise to achieve the requirements of the landfill tax directive, which are mandatory. They are to reduce the amount of household waste going to landfill from 85 per cent. at its current level to no more than 35 per cent. of 1995 levels by 2016. That is a shift in any one year of up to 33 million tonnes. If we can all do that by reducing the amount of waste created or by a large increase, which is exactly what I intend, in recycling, re-use and recovery, that is fine. However, incinerators are bound to play a small part.
Under the November 1996 EU directive, emission standards are vastly tighter and stricter than they were in the 1960s. Dioxins must be no more than one part in a billion per cubic metre, and that is a minuscule amount. Far more dioxins are released on Guy Fawkes night from the burning of wood than are released from the regular use of incinerators.
I am rather surprised by the hon. Gentleman's point because, in the Tory Government's 1995 waste strategy, of which the Leader of the Opposition, as Secretary of State for Wales, was a co-sponsor, said:
The Government—
that is, the Tory Government—
agreed … that incineration with energy recovery should play a larger part in waste management in the future.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response to the question. If we could get recycling under way and introduce combined heat and power to burn domestic and industrial waste, that may not do away with the need for incineration, as advocated by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), but it would help the economy and reduce waste and the need


for more landfill sites. More recycling and more combined heat and power would meet the Government's policy requirements.

Mr. Meacher: The Government are extremely keen to see a big increase in good quality combined heat and power and in the use of renewables, and that is why both have been exempted from the climate change levy. We are also pursuing a massive increase in recycling. I made it clear in our strategy document that the Government intend to double the level of recycling within the next three years and to triple it within five years, and to reach a level of 30 per cent.—up among the European leaders—by 2010. If we do all that, incineration will play a relatively small role.

Mr. Damian Green: When the Minister considers his policy towards incineration and the Opposition's more environmentally friendly policy, will he and his colleagues take to heart the comments of the Green Alliance which, in its parliamentary newsletter, says that the Conservatives have
succeeded … in catching the public mood by acknowledging recent scientific unease and public concerns over incineration?

He should take that to heart because the director of the Green Alliance, who wrote that, has just been appointed his Department's environmental adviser. Does he agree with his new adviser that the Opposition's policy on waste is better and greener than his policy?

Mr. Meacher: I certainly do not believe that a Government who produced a level of recycling of 2 per cent. in 1992 have any claim to being environmentally conscious. The current level of 9 per cent. is far too low, but under the previous Government it was no less than pathetic. What we have seen, which is beginning to be the Opposition's trademark, is a degree of opportunism in rejecting the previous Government's policies and coming up with the exact opposite. The electorate will know what to make of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — Beacon Councils

Kali Mountford: If he will make a statement on beacon councils. [123993]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): We want all councils to take part in the beacon scheme because it gives them the opportunity to learn from those that are already achieving the best. More than 40 councils are now running learning events, which have already been attended by some 2,000 people, and 11 new service themes have been announced for the second year. We are now inviting councils that believe that they offer excellence in those themes to apply for beacon status.

Kali Mountford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that she is aware than Kirklees council in my area has already achieved beacon status under a Labour administration, and I am now concerned to see that that scheme is properly evaluated to ensure that services remain at a high standard. Does my hon. Friend

have plans for a continuous evaluation scheme; and, if so, how will that benefit my constituents, and how can they ensure that there is continuous improvement?

Ms Beverley Hughes: Kirklees had an impressive bid through its strong partnership with tenants, upon which its repairs and maintenance service is based. My hon. Friend is right to say that the whole point of the beacon scheme, with other measures, is to improve the standard of public services. That is all the more necessary after the run-down of public services that took place under the previous Government. Evaluation is therefore vital.
We have appointed researchers jointly with the improvement and development agency and Warwick university to evaluate the dissemination that is taking place. Longer-term evaluation will ascertain the extent to which the beacon scheme improves public services. That improvement is our clear aim.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Is it not ironic that the Minister is granting beacon status to councils when she is also diverting council funding, reducing councils' financial freedom through specific grants and capping, undermining their authority through an obsession with regional government and directly elected mayors, while simultaneously imposing structures that councils do not want? Is it not time that the Government left local government alone, encouraged local democracy and returned real powers and responsibilities to local councils?

Ms Hughes: If the criteria for leaving councils alone is the neglect of local government and public services that occurred in 18 years of Conservative Government, we would not want to compete with the Conservative party and we could not begin to do so. I have told the House on many occasions about the Government's extra funding for councils, but it is clear that Conservative Members do not want to listen. Our funding has increased by 8 per cent. in real terms in the past three years, compared with a 4 per cent. cut in real terms in the three years that led up to the general election. That is the measure of our support for local government. We are determined to make it strong, and provide good public services.
On the new regimes and political management, the best councils are doing that already; we are simply enabling the others to come up to speed.

Oral Answers to Questions — Fishing Incidents

Dr. Norman A. Godman: How many (a) commercial fishermen have been lost at sea and (b) fishing vessels have (i) capsized and (ii) foundered in each of the past three years. [123994]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): Over the past three years, the total number of fishermen who died as a result of their vessel being lost or of falling overboard is 53, and the number of vessels that capsized or foundered is 60. This year, there have been 14 deaths up to May.

Dr. Godman: It is deeply regrettable, but given the hazardous occupation that those men follow and the seas that they are often in, men and vessels will be lost.


However, some of the terrible losses happen because of inadequate safety equipment, poor safety training and negligence. What will the Department do to reduce those dreadful statistics? Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a sharp discrepancy between the training programmes on safety that are offered to merchant navy personnel and those that are available to fishermen? Something needs to be done soon.

Mr. Mullin: I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend's long-standing interest, which, I recall, stretches back more than 30 years, to the time when we were at university together. We went to one of the élite universities—Hull.

Dr. Godman: I was a mature student, my hon. Friend was an immature student.

Mr. Mullin: I readily own up to that. My hon. Friend has also worn better than me over the years.
For a variety of reasons, the industry has a sad safety record. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree with that. Part of that is due to the culture in the industry, which in the past tended to treat safety regulations as some sort of Government interference, whereas they should be the norm in an industry as dangerous as fishing.
We have introduced a safety code for vessels under 12 m. We also have a three-year joint initiative with the industry. Arising from that, one possibility under consideration is the provision of mobile training facilities. That would, I think, deal with my hon. Friend's point about taking training to fishermen rather than holding training sessions elsewhere.
The Deputy Prime Minister, who also takes the matter seriously—and who was at university with my hon. Friend and me—has so far held two meetings with representatives of the fishing industry this year to discuss safety.

Mr. Andrew George: Given that 11 lives have been lost in my constituency during the period under discussion, I am sure the Minister accepts the seriousness of the problem. It is particularly serious for smaller and single-handed vessels. In view of his earlier reply, would the Minister be prepared to expand on the timetable for the introduction of a safety code for vessels measuring less than 12 m?

Mr. Mullin: The code is being introduced this year.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although there may not be many fishermen left in the country, in a fishing community like Lowestoft everyone knows a fishing family, and everyone knows a family who has suffered a bereavement at some point? Ties are strong, and it is an emotive issue.
I am concerned about the seaworthiness of, in particular, small fishing boats in Lowestoft harbour. Fishermen are hard-pressed because of general difficulties affecting fishing. Will my hon. Friend give special consideration to safety grants for smaller vessels? I think that that is the way in which we could save the most lives.

Mr. Mullin: We think that what is most needed is safety training, rather than grants.
I feel that skippers and employers—although I know that many fishermen are self-employed—could take more interest in the risks to which their crews are exposed. It should, for instance, become the norm for fishermen to wear life jackets when on deck. Unfortunately it is not the norm, thus far at least.

Mr. Robert Syms: This is a serious subject for all of us who represent fishing constituencies. Why, in the light of the tragic figures that the Minister has given, have the Government—as an economy under the comprehensive spending review—cancelled fishing vessel safety equipment grants? Surely they should consider that decision seriously, and, if necessary, reverse it.

Mr. Mullin: The money spent on safety equipment should have been spent on vessels in any case. That is why we are concentrating on promoting safety training for crews. We made the change because we think that it will be more effective.

Oral Answers to Questions — Cyclists (London)

Mr. Denis MacShane: What steps he is taking to ensure the safety of cyclists in London. [123995]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): We are supporting London local authorities in the creation of the London cycle network, which aims to develop 2,900 km of cycle routes that are safe and convenient. As part of that initiative, a design manual has been produced by the boroughs to assist in achieving high standards of cycling safety.

Mr. MacShane: That is jolly good, but there is not one secure bicycling lane in Trafalgar square, Parliament square, Whitehall, Millbank, Victoria street or any of the access roads leading to this place. Why is that the case, after 18 years of Conservative government and three years of Labour government?

Mr. Hill: I know that my hon. Friend takes a deep interest in this matter. Indeed, he has just tabled no fewer than 16 questions on it, which I am delighted to say were answered before this Question Time.
The latest available figures suggest that cycling in London is increasing, especially in the central area. Moreover, I am pleased to say that the figures for cycling accidents continue to show a slight decrease in London, against a background of increasing cycle usage. My hon. Friend is right, however: a key aspect of cycling safety is the separation of the cyclist from traffic. Nearly half the London cycle network is now in place, and I am also pleased to say that this year we have increased the allocation to London boroughs for the network to £6 million.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: As a regular cyclist—unlike Ministers in their chauffeur-driven limousines—and while acknowledging that the Minister has been a cyclist in the past, may I ask whether he agrees that one of the contributors to risks for cyclists is the condition of the roads? The roads in London are in their worst condition since the 1970s, with 70 per cent. of local authorities complaining that the condition of the roads is


a risk to road users. At the present spending rate, it would take 70 years to resurface all London's roads. When will the Government admit that they are spending less on road maintenance and, indeed, less on the London cycle network than the previous Government?

Mr. Hill: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the condition of roads is an essential aspect of successful and expanding cycling. That is why the Government are taking pains to compensate for the Conservative party's deplorable record in government and why, in the first four years of this Labour Government, we will have spent an extra £2 billion in total on the condition and improvement of our roads. Let me not be wholly curmudgeonly about the matter by saying that, of course, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman joining me in our wobble to Westminster next Tuesday as part of national bike to work day, along with no fewer than 75 other Members of the Houses of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — Housing Investment

Ms Rosie Winterton: If he will make a statement on housing investment. [123996]

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: If he will make a statement on the housing investment programme. [123998]

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Government are committed to delivering major improvements in the quality of housing and in the performance of social landlords to deliver our vision for housing as set out in the recent housing Green Paper. We have substantially increased the resources for housing investment—around £5 billion extra over the lifetime of this Parliament—and we ale ensuring that the available resources are used as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Ms Winterton: I very much welcome the extra resources to which my hon. Friend refers, which have meant that Doncaster council's housing investment allocation has increased by 51 per cent. this year. That has allowed the council to make repairs and improvements to the housing stock in greatest need. However, over and above the immediate capital improvement, the problem remains of long-term changes in housing requirements that arise from demographic changes. For example, more accommodation for single people is needed in Doncaster. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that local authorities can meet those new challenges?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the need for local authorities to be conscious of changing demographic trends. In our housing Green Paper, we encourage local authorities to develop a more strategic role in which they will oversee the need for all types of housing in their areas, rather than concentrating solely on the provision of social housing, which many have in the past. There will be further increases in housing investment programme allocations in the coming year, in which the comprehensive spending review provided for an additional 25 per cent. uplift on

top of this year's very considerable increase. I hope that my hon. Friend will see the real benefits of that in Doncaster.

Mr. Thomas: I, too, welcome the extra investment in housing that my hon. Friend has announced and congratulate him on his success in securing the funds from the Treasury, but bearing in mind the fact that high house prices in London have pushed up the demand for affordable housing and the previous Government's neglect of social housing—I think of the Rayner's Lane estate in my constituency—can he assure the House that he will continue to press the case for the extra investment that London's affordable housing stock so desperately needs?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an extremely fair point, and I am grateful to him for his kind remarks about the uplift in the housing investment programme allocation in Harrow, which was no less than 66 per cent, up on the previous year. Of course, that means that the local authority will be able to do substantially more to tackle the backlog of poor conditions. He makes a very fair point about the continuing severe pressures in London and the south-east. He will be aware that in our housing Green Paper we have set out several proposals, including a starter home initiative to assist those who wish to buy their homes but are unable to do so because of exceptionally high prices. We believe that that, together with continuing increases in the improvement of the existing social housing stock and the provision of new social housing through registered social landlords, will make a significant contribution to tackling those real problems.

Mr. David Curry: Why does the Minister think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer rejected his Department's representations before the Budget to harmonise the rates of value added tax—in particular, to bring them down—on housing repair and renovation of derelict sites? Does not he agree that the absence of such a measure makes it harder to achieve the objectives of his Green Paper? Does he intend to return to that subject in the urban White Paper, which appears to be the last opportunity to put that essential piece of the jigsaw in place?

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget statement that he would welcome a debate on the use of economic instruments to encourage regeneration and specifically proposed consideration of changes to the stamp duty regime for brownfield areas. The matter is under debate and I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to campaign on it vigorously, as he has in the past, because there are real issues about how we best attune economic instruments to work with the grain of Government policy to encourage brownfield development and the regeneration of our cities.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the House welcomes the Government's decision to follow on from the previous Government and to use private finance to take over council estates—Conservative Members certainly do—but what are the Minister's thoughts on encouraging private landlords to put their houses up for


rent further to allow people to get into family homes? In particular, do the Government have any plans to solve the problem of people refusing to pay rent? Those bad tenants are difficult to remove from private tenancies, which puts many people off renting out their houses.

Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman will know from reading our housing Green Paper, we attach considerable importance to working with the private rented sector to improve its supply and its quality. He will be aware that, at its best, it provides good-quality accommodation on favourable terms that people welcome. Equally, there are terrible abuses at the wrong end of that sector. There are some poor tenants, and also some poor landlords. We are working to improve standards by encouraging investment by responsible landlords and through arrangements such as the approved letting scheme, on which I have recently focused to encourage high standards. We are also committed to introducing licensing in multi-occupied houses to bear down on abuses at the bottom end of the sector.

Angela Smith: Like many others, I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to extra investment in housing, but may I put a special case to him? Will he consider the problems of new towns and new town housing stock, much of which is the same age and needs repairs and maintenance at the same time? That makes it extremely difficult for councils to have a rolling programme of repairs and, if left, minor repairs become major. Will he meet me and representatives of my local authority to examine ways to find the funding to do the much-needed repairs in my constituency?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend raises a perfectly fair point about the characteristics of some new towns in which the housing stock was developed in a particular period when the emphasis was very much on the need for family housing. There may be a need to make changes in the housing stock to respond to changing demographic patterns—a point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) also alluded. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and I have met delegations from new town areas and other areas with similar characteristics to discuss the impact of the new housing finance arrangements that we intend to introduce from next April. I am happy to consider representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) and her constituency on that subject.

Mr. Archie Norman: I am sorry that the Deputy Prime Minister is not here to respond to this question as I know that he takes a close personal interest in low-cost housing.
On housing investment, can the Minister explain why he dismissed the Serplan recommendation that 40 per cent, of the new houses to be built in the south-east should be affordable homes? Will he now clarify what he meant in The Sunday Telegraph when he implied that he would punish councils in the south-east of England that voted against his proposals to concrete over the countryside of the south-east? Does he not realise that the purpose of consultation is to listen and that the purpose of decentralisation is to let local people decide? Does not his arrogant and petulant response to yesterday's vote

illustrate that he is out of touch with people of the south-east of England and that all his claims to have decentralised and to have moved away from predict and provide were a hollow sham?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the piece in The Sunday Telegraph in which the description was an accurate statement of his personal view of the process. However, it was not in any way an accurate representation of my views and I should like to put it on the record that there was serious misrepresentation in it.
As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, I have made it quite clear that we shall listen to all representations on the RPG—regional planning guidance—for the south-east. We shall listen to the views of the 39 Serplan authorities that voted according to the hon. Gentleman's whip, and to the 30 that voted the other way. Personally, I regret very much that, as a result of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, a body that previously operated on a consensual basis to try to bring agreement on these important issues is split on party political lines. That does no service to the sensible process of trying to reconcile two hugely important issues: housing provision for people in need and the protection of the countryside. The Government are committed to those objectives and, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, we shall pursue policies that respond to those responsibilities.

Oral Answers to Questions — Genetically Modified Crops

Joan Ruddock: If he will make a statement on the progress of the review of separation distances for GM crops undergoing farm-scale trials in the UK. [123997]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food explained to the House on Thursday 8 June that his Department is conducting a scientific review of separation distances and their relationship with crop varietal purity. He is also consulting interested parties, including conventional and organic farmers, and will take account of any lessons that can be learned from the Advanta seeds issue.

Joan Ruddock: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Has he formed an opinion about the risk matrix-based separation distances recommended by the National Pollen Research Unit? Will he take a lead in the matter and can he guarantee that new separation distances will be put in place before the 1 August notification deadline for new, autumn-sown, genetic modification farm-scale trials?

Mr. Meacher: I am concerned about the issue, as my hon. Friend knows. We are examining appropriate separation distances as a matter of urgency. Indeed, we take seriously the variable matrix model produced by the National Pollen Research Unit, which is supported by the Soil Association, with which I have been having discussions, and others. The survey is being conducted by MAFF, to which those proposals should be sent.
Contamination and separation distances are traditional, having been determined by agronomic practice over 50 or more years, and 99.5 per cent, of the pollen will not get


beyond those distances. However, small—sometimes vanishingly small—amounts of pollen may, and indeed can, travel considerable distances. The problem is knowing exactly where to draw the line in a continuous deposition level over long periods.

Mr. Owen Paterson: The Mayall family have been farming at Pimhill in my constituency for 51 years. Their organic farm is a highly successful enterprise. Important GM trials are taking place not very far away. It is absolutely vital that we establish safe separation distances as soon as possible. GM crops have been grown in bulk in the United States for more than 10 years. How many visits have the Ministers' officials made to find out what the distances are there?

Mr. Meacher: I cannot answer the specific question, but I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives an answer. We have been increasing the number of visits made by the Central Science Laboratory, which took over from the Health and Safety Executive in the supervision of GM sites.
I repeat that I am concerned about the issue. There should be due and adequate notification of GM trials. We have arranged local meetings in villages and towns so that people are properly informed and can make representations.
I am concerned that we should have a fresh look at the matter by the August sowing deadline, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) referred to, and that we shall be able to establish a fairer cordon sanitaire, possibly on the variable matrix model, which I favour. It is false to pretend that any distance will prevent all contamination; the question is how we can minimise that to a level that is acceptable to those buying the product, because they will have to determine what degree of GM food in a non-GM product is acceptable.

Oral Answers to Questions — Empty Houses

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What steps his Department proposes to take to assist those local authorities with large numbers of empty private sector houses. [124000]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): We are considering the recommendations of the empty property advisory group which are aimed at building on the steps that we have already taken to assist local authorities. In addition, from this year we are requiring all authorities to account to local people for their actions by publishing indicators of their performance in tackling empty privately owned homes.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend will know that Burnley has almost 3,000 empty private sector terraced houses, in addition to many private sector houses that need major renovation. Do the Government accept that it is a problem that Burnley and councils in a similar situation cannot solve alone? Government help is needed and people must work together.

Mr. Mullin: The Government certainly accept that the problem cannot be solved by councils alone. Many other

parts of the north, including my constituency in Sunderland, have a similar problem. That is one of the reasons why we have set up the empty property advisory group, and we certainly recognise that help will be needed.

Mr. Don Foster: If tackling the scourge of empty homes is so important to the Government, why was no reference made to it in any of the 43 key recommendations in the housing policy paper? Will the Minister acknowledge that there are 750,000 empty homes in this country, and that a quarter of them are in London and the south-east? Would not it be better to start bringing those back into use before concreting over the green belt in the south-east?
As a way of making that happen, will the Minister join the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), me and many other Members in a campaign to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to change the crazy VAT arrangements whereby one pays full VAT on renovation to bring homes back into use and nothing on new build?

Mr. Mullin: There have been recommendations on empty homes. Although the original question was about private housing, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a serious problem of empty public housing in London. We are doing all that we can to encourage local authorities to deal with it. It is partly a question of resources, and over this Parliament, we are putting an extra £5 billion into housing. As the hon. Gentleman knows, VAT is a matter for the Chancellor, who will have heard the point made by the hon. Gentleman and many others.

Miss Geraldine Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware of the large number of Victorian properties which were formerly used as hotel accommodation that lie empty in seaside resorts? Many are sold cheaply at auction—a 10-bedroomed property in Morecambe sold for £4,000—and are bought by unscrupulous absentee landlords who provide poor housing in the rented sector. That problem faces all British seaside resorts, especially Morecambe, and I am interested in the Minister's plans to deal with it.

Mr. Mullin: Unscrupulous absentee landlords are not a problem only in seaside resorts. Sunderland has exactly the same problem; I hesitate to class it as a seaside resort, although it is on the sea. It is one of the reasons why we will introduce licensing for houses in multiple occupation. We have some other measures in mind. We recognise that it is a serious problem.

Mr. James Gray: It is important in these considerations to make a clear distinction between so-called management vacants—those houses that are ready to be re-let shortly—and the total number of vacants. Will the Minister confirm two things: first, that the five authorities with the highest number of vacants and the highest number of management vacants are all controlled by the Labour party? Secondly, will he explain why 7.5 per cent.—I believe that that is the figure—of


management vacants in the Deputy Prime Minister's local authority of Kingston upon Hull are ready to be let tomorrow, but, for some reason or other, are not being let?

Mr. Mullin: One of the reasons is that, in the north of England, which is generally controlled by Labour authorities, there tends not to be the same demand for housing, public or private, as there is in the south.

Mr. Gray: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mullin: It is a fact, whether the hon. Gentleman agrees or not. There is no point in him shaking his Wiltshire head. It is one of the facts of life, with which anyone in government must grapple. Who knows, one day he and his colleagues may be faced with the same problem. There is a massive surplus of demand in the south and insufficient demand in the north. Of course that gives rise to vacancies. We are anxious that those vacancies be properly managed and we are taking steps to do so.

Mr. Hilary Benn: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in certain circumstances where there are many empty properties, comprehensive redevelopment of an area is the best solution? If so, does he share my concern at the recent ruling of the European Commission, which has declared that gap funding is outwith state aid rules? Is he aware that that ruling is threatening many housing and other redevelopment schemes on brownfield sites, including the proposed Holbeck urban village in my constituency?

Mr. Mullin: I am aware of the European Union ruling; we are looking at it. I agree with my hon. Friend that sometimes the best solution is wholesale redevelopment. That is happening in some parts of the country, including, as he says, in his constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions — Road Accidents (North Yorkshire)

Miss Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the incidence of road accidents in North Yorkshire in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [124001]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): The total number of personal injury road accidents in North Yorkshire, including the City of York, in the last three years for which published figures are available, was as follows: in 1996, 3,274; in 1997, 3,315; and in 1998, 3,278.

Miss McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that 160 injuries and deaths in accidents per 100,000 of population—her own Department's figures—gives North Yorkshire the worst road accident rate in the country? Most of the traffic is coming from and destined for parts outside North Yorkshire, and is putting increasing pressure on North Yorkshire county council's highways budget. If the Government proceed to detrunk, which is

their announced intention, it will be totally unfair and unjust to ask the council, against the background of those figures, to meet the total contribution.

Ms Hughes: The written answer that the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), gave to a question about road accidents in relation to static population did give that figure for North Yorkshire but, as the hon. Lady knows, and as North Yorkshire police have pointed out, North Yorkshire is a very large county in terms of area and road miles—it has 6,000 road miles. However, it has a very small population. Therefore, any comparison of accidents in relation to population will give a relatively large figure. If we relate accidents to road miles in North Yorkshire, the incidence is no higher than the national average; indeed, it is somewhat better. We are not, however, complacent.
The Government have given North Yorkshire a 58 per cent, increase in its local transport capital settlement—to the tune of £8.5 million—so that it will be able to put even more emphasis on local safety measures. In the past few years, North Yorkshire has certainly been reducing the number of road accident casualties and serious injuries. I am sure that the hon. Lady will be pleased to note that, since the previous general election, in North Yorkshire, the number of road accidents, the total number of casualties and the number of those who are killed or seriously injured in accidents have all declined significantly.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: I welcome the improvements that my hon. Friend has just described in road safety, particularly on trunk roads, in North Yorkshire. However, will she consider speaking with people at the Highways Agency about progress on the A64 corridor to Scarborough, examining very carefully the growth in traffic that has occurred in the corridor since the general election, and reviewing progress on possible future work on the A64?

Ms Hughes: Certainly. As the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) will know—at the end of February 2000, she received a letter from the Highways Agency outlining all the initiatives on trunk roads, particular safety studies and traffic calming in North Yorkshire—the A64 trunk road and the A1 Bramham to Scarborough are the subject of a route improvement strategy for improving safety, particularly in relation to the A64 between the A1 and Scarborough. The strategy has recently been presented to the regional planning forum for its agreement, and includes a variety of individual proposals designed to deal with the problems that my hon. Friend rightly raises.

Oral Answers to Questions — Transport Bill

Mr. Andrew Robathan: What recent representations he has received from the RMT union on the provisions of the Transport Bill. [124002]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): My Department has received a number of representations about the provisions of the Transport Bill and has met a wide range of organisations and individuals


to discuss matters of mutual interest. The organisations include, of course, the RMT, which Ministers meet from time to time. Most recently, on 1 June, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston met the RMT.

Mr. Robathan: I am particularly sorry that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is not in the Chamber at least to listen to this question, as it is really directed at him. Does the Minister
believe that the Deputy Prime Minister's tenancy of an RMT flat contravenes both the spirit and the letter of the ministerial code of conduct's provisions on trade unions, which state:
care must be taken to avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest … Ministers should arrange their affairs so as to avoid any suggestion that a union of which they are a member has any undue influence … and should receive no remuneration from a union …?
Does the Minister deny that the Deputy Prime Minister's action also contravenes paragraph 109 of the code? It states:
Where there is a doubt it will almost always be better to relinquish or dispose of the interest.
Has the Minister found that the relationship between the Secretary of State and the RMT has in any way enhanced or detracted from the workings of his Department?

Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make political capital out of something that is old news. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards investigated the matter and rejected all complaints against my right hon. Friend.
Quite frankly, if the hon. Gentleman is seriously trying to make the imputation that the Government have conferred favour on the RMT in our transport legislation, he has utterly failed to do his homework on the matter. While providing for the more effective regulation of the railways through the new Strategic Rail Authority, the Transport Bill falls far short of the RMT's desire for re-nationalisation of the railway industry. The Bill's proposed National Air Traffic Services public-private partnership is also in direct opposition to the RMT's official policy. In that context, I might also point out that the RMT is not exactly wildly enthusiastic about the London Underground PPP.
The truth is that the Government serve the public interest. We need no strictures from the official Opposition, with their long and discreditable record of subservience to vested and sectional interests.

Mr. Robathan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given the Minister's unsatisfactory answer, I shall raise the matter in an Adjournment debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — Regional Development Agency (West Midlands)

Mr. Steve McCabe: If he will make a statement on the activities of the regional development agency in the west midlands. [124003]

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Advantage West Midlands has been in existence for just over a year. A major activity in that time has been the production of the west midlands regional economic strategy which was endorsed by its partners in the region. Another important task was leading the Rover task force at the request of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It is due to produce its final report at the end of June.

Mr. McCabe: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Mr. Alex Stephenson, the chairman of Advantage West Midlands, and his colleagues on their speedy and efficient work on behalf of the taskforce established in the wake of the BMW-Rover crisis? Will she also confirm that in its first full year of operation, Advantage West Midlands has been responsible for attracting record levels of direct foreign investment to the west midlands, resulting in 5,000 new jobs and safeguarding a further 9,500 jobs in the region? Does that not demonstrate the value of such agencies, and is it not an argument for nurturing and strengthening them, rather than sniping from the sidelines or threatening to dismantle them as the Opposition do all too often?

Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The regional development agency enabled people in the west midlands to work together under an organisation that already had an extensive network in the area, and the chairman of AWM, Mr. Alex Stephenson, to lead an effective response to the announcement from BMW. In addition, because the regional development agency has drawn the task force together and developed its work, the west midlands is now well placed to take that work further, to make sure that the response is not what we originally saw in respect of Rover and to develop a sustainable strategy for the future of car manufacturing in the area. Indeed, I can confirm its outstanding success to date. Everyone involved—including those who associate with the Conservative party and who are now involved with regional development agencies—thinks that the Conservative party has totally lost its way and is wrong to talk about getting rid of regional development agencies.

Point of Order

Sir Sydney Chapman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I had always understood that, when the lead Minister in a Department was unable to be in his place to answer questions, it was customary, and expected by the House, that the Minister answering the first question should give an explanation—in this case concerning the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister. Do you agree with that observation? Some of us are still waiting for an explanation.

Madam Speaker: The Deputy Prime Minister sent me his apologies and the reason for his absence, which is a very important mission overseas, which I accept. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman also sent his apologies to the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Archie Norman: indicated assent.

Madam Speaker: The Opposition indicate that that is the case. Perhaps it was remiss of me not to remind the Minister who first answered to make that quite clear to the House. I apologise to the House; perhaps it was my fault for not reminding the Minister that he ought to do that. In future, if the Secretary of State has to be absent, it is always a good thing for the Minister answering to explain to the entire House so that we are all aware of it.

Ticket Touting (London Underground)

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law in relation to the sale of London Underground tickets by unauthorised persons.
I am sure that many people who travel on the underground will have seen ticket touts in action at underground stations. Hon. Members from outside London, and perhaps even some London Members who do not use the tube to come to the House every day as I do, may not be so familiar with the practice. I am sure that many people who see the touts in action think that what they are doing is relatively harmless.
London Underground carried out a survey recently. About three quarters of those who responded said that they would give their tickets to a tout—either because they did not see much harm, given that they no longer needed the ticket, or because they considered that the people asking were down on their luck and lacked the money needed to buy a ticket.
It is illegal for people to buy and sell underground tickets, but more important matters are at stake than the relatively small amounts of money involved. Although I shall return to the question of money, I do not consider it to be the main issue.
I only realised the seriousness of the nuisance caused by touts at stations when I encountered the problem in my constituency and in the borough of Waltham Forest. It is especially bad at busy underground stations in central London, but difficulties arise in parts of east London, too.
Passengers are harassed—the gentlest means are not always used—to hand over a ticket that they no longer need, or to buy a ticket from a tout. I have seen passengers at ticket machines being almost surrounded by people wanting them to buy a ticket from them.
Touts especially focus on women, and women with children, as they think that they will be easier targets. Such targeting can be a threatening experience for passengers, but people who have been harassed, or consider that they have been harassed, are reluctant to act as witnesses if a prosecution is brought.
Just last week, I was approached by a passenger as I went home from the House late one evening. He did not know about my Bill, but he asked me when something was going to be done about the touts. He explained that he had refused to hand his ticket over to touts, and that the same people had approached him, repeatedly and in a threatening manner, over the following two weeks as he went into the station on his way to work in the evening. He said that he felt quite threatened.
London Underground staff also suffer from threats, and sometimes are assaulted. I have spoken to staff members, London Underground managers and trade union representatives, and all tell the same story: staff who interfere with the touts' activities and tell them to move on are threatened and, on occasion, physically assaulted. I was told too that some members of staff who approach touts at stations have been followed on their way home. Clearly, those people are not likely to be too keen to get involved and perhaps give evidence.
The problem extends to people who work around underground stations. A newsagent told me that a knife was held to her throat when she objected to people


blocking her news stand as they tried to sell tickets to passengers. Two other people—a florist and a newsagent in my borough—have complained to me that their businesses have suffered because passengers do not want to visit their stalls when touts are hanging around nearby.
Ticket touts are a serious problem at many underground stations. London Underground's best estimate is that they cost about £1 million in lost revenue every year. Clearly, that is money that could be invested in the system, but the prime issue is the safety of passengers and staff.
Why is there a need for a change in the law? The degree of offence and level of penalty under the law as it stands make the problem difficult to deal with. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 defines the offence as minor. Ticket touting is not, in itself, an arrestable offence—another offence would have to be committed as well for an arrest to be made. Nor is it recordable: when someone is arrested and charged, the offence is not recorded. Under London Underground byelaws, there is a maximum fine of £50, but, again, the offence is arrestable only if someone refuses to give his name and address. That is not much of a deterrent.
The levels of penalty are not very severe, and because the offence is not recordable, repeat offenders can appear in court again and again, but as far as the magistrate is concerned, they are there for the one offence which appears quite trivial—trying to sell an underground ticket for £1.50, when they did not have authority to sell it. The minor penalties, conditional discharges and tiny fines are no deterrent for repeat offenders.
The Bill would clarify and strengthen the law in this area. I do not believe that the law is the only answer. Part of the answer is for passengers not to give their tickets over when they have finished with them. As with quite a lot of pretty crime, there are links with drugs—some of the people involved undoubtedly want the money to buy drugs. I do not believe that penalties are necessarily the only answer—we need other ways of dealing with the drugs problem. However, there is no question but that we should be able to be tougher on persistent repeat offenders and those who harass passengers. The police should have the power of arrest so that it is much simpler and easier for them to deal with the problem, which would mean revision of the PACE provisions. I believe that it would be useful if the London Underground byelaws were in some way amended and brought into statute law.
That is the purpose of the Bill, which I commend to the House this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Mike Gapes and Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

TICKET TOUTING (LONDON UNDERGROUND)

Mr. Neil Gerrard accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law in relation to the sale of London Underground tickets by unauthorised persons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 139].

Orders of the Day — Countryside and Rights of Way Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Ordered,

That the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order: Amendments relating to Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clauses 3 to 8, Schedule 3, Clauses 9 to 42 and Schedule 4; New Clauses relating to Part I; Amendments relating to Clauses 43 to 47, Schedule 5, Clauses 48 and 49, Schedule 6, Clauses 50 to 57, Schedule 7 and Clauses 58 and 59; New Clauses relating to Part II; Amendments relating to Clause 60, Schedule 8, Clause 61, Schedule 9, Clauses 62 to 65 and Schedule 10; New Clauses relating to Part III; Amendments relating to Clauses 66 to 70, Schedule 11 and Clauses 71 and 72; remaining new Clauses; new Schedules.—[Mr. Kevin
Hughes.]

Clause 1

PRINCIPAL DEFINITIONS

Mr. Damian Green: I beg to move amendment No. 101, in page 1, line 12, at end insert—
', and is at least 10 hectares in size'.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 102, in page 2, line 17, leave out "wholly or predominantly" and insert—
'of at least 60 per cent.'.
No. 306, in page 2, line 21, at end add
', and to which the public has a general right of access'.

Mr. Green: In Committee, the Minister described the Bill as "messy". He was right then, and, unfortunately, he is still right. He will be as aware as anyone that the countryside's dislike of the Government is growing by the week. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will therefore respond positively during our debates to our attempts to improve the Bill.
This group of amendments—particularly amendments Nos. 101 and 102—represents an attempt to continue to make this part of the Bill less impracticable: one of our main complaints about the Bill concerns its impracticability. The Government should be aware that as they stir up opposition in country areas with other measures that we have heard about this week, it is all the more important that this Bill should not cause further friction between the Government and their officials, and those who live and work in the countryside. Let me give an example of the effects of many of the measures in part I of the Bill. Every farmer contemplating providing permissive access as part of a stewardship scheme or diversification initiative will now have that income-earning opportunity removed. It is precisely because upland farmers will be the people most affected by the right of access as defined in the Bill that it is important that the provisions in part I should be made as workable, and non-disruptive to their businesses, as possible.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Where is the hon. Gentleman's evidence that the measure will


cause any problem? As was pointed out on Second Reading, such provisions have applied in most of the Lake district for more than 100 years—and in large chunks of the Peak district as a result of access agreements negotiated by the national park—without causing any difficulties at all. If such arrangements do not cause a problem in those two areas, where is the hon. Gentleman's evidence that it will cause problems elsewhere?

Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me down a route that is not entirely germane to the amendments. However, the upland areas in particular contain the farms which are under the most economic pressure: they are suffering from the worst economic crisis that many can remember. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is knowledgeable on these matters, will agree that for the Government to deny money-raising opportunities to upland farmers in the climate in which they are forced to operate today is particularly unfortunate.
In this group of amendments and others, we will seek precisely to ensure that the right of access—which we did not oppose on Second Reading—is as practicable as possible so that all those who have to make it work, particularly in the uplands, can feel that, although the Government are making their lives more difficult in many ways, they are not making it unnecessarily difficult through the detailed provisions of the Bill.

Mr. James Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the important distinctions to be made between the arrangements applying to the Peak district and Lake district national parks and the provisions of the Bill is that, in those areas, the authorities are able to designate where people are allowed to walk? They may choose to allow people to walk anywhere, but they are certainly allowed to offer them designated access points—mainly linear access. That is quite different from what is proposed in clause 1.

Mr. Green: My hon. Friend makes the point that there are many differences between the designated national parks and other areas where access will now be allowed. Each has individual characteristics and it is important—precisely because this House cannot and should not pass legislation that bears differently on different parts of the country—that the legislation that we pass should not disadvantage those who are already in the most difficult economic circumstances.
The purpose of amendment No. 101 is to make practicable the provision of access to areas permitted under the clause. We are seeking to introduce greater consistency to the Bill, which has as one of its many faults a degree of inconsistency. The Government recognise in clause 4(5)(a) that pieces of open country may be so small that access should not be required. The amendment proposes a de minimis limit of 10 hectares, to ensure that that perfectly sensible provision in clause 4 also applies in clause 1.
I am sure that the Minister will recognise that there are many reasons why that should be the case. In all cases, there are many costs associated with providing the access land—whether related to signing, to providing wardens or to making byelaws. Quite apart from the economic effect on farmers and other landowners, there will be costs on the public purse.

We want to ensure that the extra access actually provides the most advantage to those who want to use it—the walkers—and that it is targeted towards decent-sized areas of land that offer the greatest public benefit. We keep using the phrase "right to roam". Clearly, the right to roam is of less use on a small parcel of land because less roaming can be done there.
We want both to restrict the additional costs that arise from the Bill and to maximise the leisure and health benefits that will accrue if more people are encouraged to walk in the English countryside—one of the matters that does not divide those who hold differing views as to the merits of this part of the Bill. There is little point in a right to roam if there is not enough land over which to roam, so it would be a good idea to establish a minimum size for access land.
Many of those with the greatest knowledge of such matters agree with us. The point is well made by the National Farmers Union, which supports the amendment because, without it, many small areas of land that are difficult to reach could fall under the definition of access land. That would be especially relevant in the uplands. If such places were difficult of access, new areas of access land would have to be created in order to reach them. Those places might be small, of limited interest to the user and awkward to map and manage.
I hope that the Government will take the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended; it would improve the practical application of the measure without denying to any great extent the right of access to any area.
Amendment No. 102 is an attempt to improve the Bill by adding greater precision to the definitions of access land. Currently, the phrase "wholly or predominantly" is used. We want to make the wording more practicable by changing it to
at least 60 per cent.
We all have a vague idea as to the meaning of "predominantly", but the scope of the provision is unclear none the less. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), said that "predominantly.' meant anything more than 50 per cent. Our proposal is that it should be 60 per cent. Other people have suggested 66 per cent.
I shall take the unusual step of referring to a briefing that is in disagreement with the amendment. The NFU agrees that further clarification is needed, but thinks that our amendment sets too low a threshold. That is one point of view. However, it is unarguable that some sensible and definite level needs to be set; otherwise confusion will reign and it will not be clear whether the measure is being applied fairly.
There are some other problems—literally around the edges. The definition of whether and how far the land can extend beyond the edge of the heath in certain circumstances is clearly relevant too.
I am aware that the expression "wholly or predominantly" has been taken from access agreements and orders made under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. However, there is an important difference between such orders and those that would be made under the Bill. The provisions made under the 1949 Act applied by agreement or by a carefully considered order and were subject to compensation. We shall discuss


compensation later, but the key point is that those provisions were not likely to be applied to land that was not obviously open country. The Bill will impose that regime on 4 million acres of open country and it is obvious that the definitions require more precision if they are to be applied to such land.
Other legislation applying to land designations—to sites of special scientific interest, for example—does not use the word "predominantly". If the Government wished to accept the amendment, they could satisfactorily argue that it followed precedent. There are better ways of defining land areas than that used in the Bill.

Mr. John Bercow: Does amendment No. 101 spring from the premise that the privacy appertaining to a small piece of land is inherently greater than that which applies to a larger piece of land, or is it my hon. Friend's contention that it is merely a matter of practicality that informs the amendment?

Mr. Green: My hon. Friend tempts me into a debate about principle, which I suspect you, Madam Speaker, would not find acceptable in this context. I merely say that practicality is the predominant issue in this group. However, I am aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have views about the principles involved.
Should they wish to, the Government could accept amendment No. 102 in the full knowledge that they would merely be following the legislation that set up the sites of special scientific interest, which hon. Members on both sides of the House supported. I recommend that the Government follow that example rather than that used in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

Mr. Bill Etherington: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the size of the area of land and to practicalities, but is he aware that at Hawes in Wensleydale, north Yorkshire, is the Hardraw force, one of the most beautiful waterfalls in the country? It is made more interesting by the fact that, in the 19th century, it was destroyed by severe flooding and was rebuilt in a magnificent way by the then landowner. If the hon. Gentleman prevents the public from having access to small parcels of land, he will deprive them of the opportunity to see the one small feature that is worth visiting in an area of many square miles. Will he respond to that point?

Mr. Green: I will happily respond to it. I am not aware of that waterfall, but I shall make a point of visiting it. I am advised by my hon. Friends who know the area that a footpath runs right to the waterfall, so there is already access to it. The hon. Gentleman's example is not relevant to the Bill and to the access provisions, because access is already provided. Even if there were not a footpath to the waterfall, I remind him that it is open to any landowner to provide voluntary access, in the way that many do. As the hon. Gentleman said, a public-spirited landowner repaired the waterfall in the 19th century. I hope that his descendants—if they still own the land—are equally public spirited and would wish the public to enjoy the full beauty of that waterfall.
The hon. Gentleman's point is not relevant to my point, which is that, if the Bill is to have largely beneficial effects, it needs to be as practicable as possible. My hon.

Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) will speak to amendment No. 306, which deals with a specific issue but which is also concerned with the overarching point that the Bill should be as practicable and tidy as possible. In that spirit, I commend the amendments to the House.

4 pm

Mr. Robert Key: I shall speak to amendment No. 306. I fear that, inadvertently, the Bill will extinguish the rights of the villagers of Great Wishford in my constituency and remove their ancient privileges.
Prior to the Commons Registration Act 1965, there was considerable doubt over what land was subject to rights of common, and what rights of common existed over common land. In order to ascertain exactly what common land existed and to provide for the management and improvement of common land, the Commons Registration Act 1965 introduced a scheme for registering common rights that were claimed to be in existence. I know that the Minister for the Environment referred to that in Committee.
Under the 1965 Act, among other things, common land and rights over common land were registrable. After July 1970, no land could be deemed common land unless it was registered under the Act, and no rights of common were exercisable over any land unless they were registered under that Act or had been previously registered under the Land Registration Acts 1925 and 1936.
Examples of rights of common are the right of piscary—the right to catch and take away fish; auceptary—fowling; turbary—the right to take peat or turf for use as fuel; and estovers—the right to take wood from the land of another for a specific purpose.
On 29 May each year—this year was no exception—the villagers of Great Wishford celebrate Oak Apple day. It was during the Whit recess this year, so fortunately I was able to enjoy it. I did not get up at dawn to exercise the right with the villagers to go into the forest to gather wood. In a very ancient ceremony probably going back to the 14th century, the boughs of oak that have been gathered are taken into Salisbury cathedral, a dance is performed in front of the altar, and the villagers shout, "Grovely, Grovely, Grovely and all Grovely", and go back for a jolly good feast.
That is history and reality and, for the souls of Great Wishford, a treasured part of their heritage. The Wilton estate, and the Earl of Pembroke in particular, fully support and welcome the continuation of those rights. That is not in question. No one is suggesting that those rights should not exist—on the contrary, we want to preserve those rights and privileges for the villagers of Great Wishford. Everyone recognises them as an essential part of the character of the life of Great Wishford.
There has been great uncertainty, however, on the part of that estate and the Oak Apple club, which was formed almost two centuries ago to ensure the perpetuation of those ancient rights, about what the rights comprise. That was fully investigated a couple of years ago, and everyone in the parish received a letter jointly from the parish council, the Oak Apple club and the estate to clarify the position.
The rights have existed since time out of mind, and they were recorded in a charter of the forest court of Grovely in 1603. All but one of those rights were abolished under an


Enclosure Act of 1809 in return for a grant of allotment land outside the wood. The only right not abolished was the right of estovers—the right to collect dead wood. That is now registered as a legal right under the Commons Registration Act 1965. The other ancient custom that has been resurrected is the collecting of green oak or hazel boughs on 29 May each year, and that continues.
The right of estovers is defined under the Commons Registration Act 1965 as
the gathering and bringing away of dead snapping wood boughs and sticks
over the whole of Grovely wood. The right can be exercised by all the inhabitants of the parish of Great Wishford, subject to these conditions: the collecting of dead wood must take place on foot. If required, a handcart may be used, but there is no right to take a vehicle beyond the main entrances to the wood. The right does not include any right to roam freely over the wood for purposes of recreation, referring only to the collecting of dead wood. The exercise of one's right to collect dead wood does not mean that one has a right to exercise a dog. The exercise of the right must not interfere with the owner's lawful use of the land.
That is all agreed. As far as I am aware, no one in the village disputes it. The management of Grovely wood is undertaken half by the Wilton estate and half by the Forestry Commission. They are involved in the responsible and far-sighted management of that land. The policy of the estate is to welcome and support public access, as far as is reasonable, within the constraints of other management considerations. In addition to the right of estovers, there is a network of bridle paths. Indeed, there are permissive bridlepaths in addition to the public rights-of-way network, an increase in the amount of way-marking and the placing of maps at the main entrances to the wood to show the extent of public access. That is all clear. However, it seems that the Bill, which has many good points, will give any member of the public the right to enter and remain on any common land for the purposes of open-air recreation, subject to his observing various restrictions. Access will also be allowed with a dog, subject to certain restrictions.
The effect of the Bill would be to allow the general public unlimited access to about 2,000 acres of woodland which previously was subject to only very limited rights of access for a very limited group of people—the villagers of Great Wishford.
The landowner may be able to restrict access for up to a maximum of 28 days in any year, but I am sure that the Minister will understand the implications of the matter. Grovely wood has never been common land in the loose sense of the term. A particular common land right—the right of estovers—was formalised in 1970, but it was never the intention of anybody, landowners or villagers, that the whole of this important woodland should become common land in the way that that is implied under the Bill. I am sure that there are many similar cases throughout the country—

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that on 28 March, in Committee, I asked the

Minister for the Environment whether under the Commons Registration Act 1965
certain commons are registered that give rights in common to certain restricted groups of people? It seems that the Bill will give a general right of access to such common lands. If so, it will widen the definition—
in the Act—
of common land.
The Minister for the Environment said:
My immediate reaction, without receiving advice, is that the Bill is intended to have that effect. If I am wrong, I shall ensure that the Committee is informed of the fact.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28 March 2000; c. 25–26.].
As far as I know, we have not been given an answer. The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) is completely pertinent to what I said in Committee.

Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was aware that he had assiduously taken part in the proceedings in Committee. I have referred to a speech that the Minister made in Committee. My hon. Friend has done us all a favour by pointing out that the Minister has not replied. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has now taken advice. I wrote to him on 15 May, and I look forward to receiving a reply.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: So do we all.

Mr. Key: So do we all, as my hon. Friend says. I know that he knows Grovely wood very well, and understands the importance to the people of Great Wishford of what I am saying.
My desire is to set out clearly the definition of common land in the Bill to make it clear that common land means registered common land to which the public have a general right of access, and that the Bill does not seek to extinguish rights of common and common land registered under the Commons Registration Act 1965, or land that had previously been registered under the Land Registrations Acts of 1925 and 1936.
It is a simple matter of trying to preserve ancient rights and privileges for the people of the parish of Great Wishford. I hope that the Minister will respond positively. If he has not had tune to receive advice, I understand that. However, I hope that he will take the matter on board, possibly even in another place. It is an issue that must be addressed. The people of Great Wishford will not take it kindly if a Government who purport to be extending people's rights to access to the countryside effectively extinguish their own ancient rights.

Mr. David Heath: It is a delight to be back with the Bill. I was feeling withdrawal symptoms after a few weeks of not having my weekly fill of discussing access issues and rights of way.
The amendments are all pertinent in their way. However, I fear that I cannot personally support them and that I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to support them. That is a shame, because we worked closely together in Committee, and we found common positions with the Conservative Opposition on many issues. I feel that the amendments are misdirected, and I shall try to explain why.
Amendment No. 101 addresses the important issue of a de minimis provision, which we discussed in Committee. As I said then, I have some sympathy for the position taken by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green)—which is that there should be some kind of de minimis provision. Where I fall out with him is over the fact that he is trying to make that a fixed figure. Ten hectares or 25 acres may seem an appropriate arbitrary figure, but in particular circumstances, it may seem entirely inappropriate to a point on the map. What is proposed is an unqualified de minimis figure, which means simply that land that falls within this category is excluded from access land.

Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give us one example of a piece of land which currently has no rights of way and, therefore, to which the public have no access, but to which, under the Bill, he believes the public should have access, and which is less than 10 hectares?

Mr. Heath: No, because I do not have an example in mind, just as the hon. Gentleman may not have in mind an example of land which would fall under the requirements of access land and meet all the other definitions in the Bill, and which would otherwise be included in the mapping process, but which falls within that limited area.
The hon. Member for Ashford is tilting at the wrong windmill. He was on to a much better point in Committee when he talked about inaccessible land. There is a strong argument for not including inaccessible portions of land in the mapping of open country. To whose advantage would it be for land which cannot be reached by any means—which by definition will be a small portion of land because otherwise it would be accessible—to be included in the map, which, presumably, people will use as a means of identifying land over which they can walk?
Had the amendment been couched in terms of inaccessibility, its movers would have had a strong point; however, imposing an arbitrary figure of 10 hectares gives rise to the question whether there is open access land as defined in the Bill that is surrounded by common land or by a promontory which is important in recreational or leisure terms and which should be included but which might be excluded simply because of the inflexibility of the suggested formula.

Mr. Bercow: I find myself in uncharacteristic agreement with the hon. Gentleman. Is his point about accessibility not strengthened by the fact that, in this context, we are discussing access by foot, and not, for example, by air? Hang-gliding and paragliding are quite properly subject to restrictions in the Bill. Does that not serve to underline the force of the hon. Gentleman's point?

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. He is right. I cannot claim originality for the concept because the proposal came from Conservative Members in Committee. However it was a sensible one which I support.
Throughout our proceedings, we have sought to make the Bill practicable—to make it work for those who wish to take advantage of access and for those who are landowners or who try to work the land and have an

interest in the land, who also need clarity of definition for all sorts of reason. My main criticism of the Bill is that some areas still lack clarity.
I am not convinced that the 10 hectare proposal is a particularly useful yardstick or metrestick. Provision already exists for countryside bodies not to include land which it is of no value for them to map for the purpose of access, so the de minimis provision is essentially there but not in a defined form. The question is whether the definition adds to or subtracts from the Bill. My view is that it does not add anything and may subtract something.
Amendment No. 102 was a vexed question in Committee. All, apart from the Minister, agreed that "wholly or predominantly" was not a particularly helpful definition because it left a lot about which to argue. We suggested alternative forms of words. I proposed "almost entirely" and was told that that was equally vague. I accept that it is imprecise. "Overwhelming" was suggested as an alternative to "predominantly". Again, it is imprecise.
4.15 pm
My objection to amendment No. 102 is that I interpret "predominantly" as more than 60 per cent. The hon. Member for Ashford said that that was the NFU's criticism; it is also mine. I do not expect land that is only 60 per cent. heathland, moorland or mountain to be mapped as open access land per se. The amendment proposes an unhelpful definition, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will not pursue.
The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) gave a complex discourse on the position in Great Wishford, and the difficulties of estovers and turbary. He made a good point about partial rights of access to common land. However, the provision to which he wants to add amendment No. 306 is not the appropriate one. I may be mistaken, but I believe he is trying to add it to a provision that excepts land from open access. The qualification would therefore make matters worse from the hon. Gentleman's point of view. The Minister will deal with that, and I shall listen carefully to the argument. The hon. Member for Salisbury made a good point, which may have to be pursued in another place. However, I suspect that amendment No. 306 is not helpful from his point of view.

Mr. Gray: I support amendments Nos. 101 and 102. I would support amendment No. 306 if I knew more about Great Wishford. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) spoke eloquently enough on that. Despite the fact that I, too, am a Wiltshire man, the amendment needs no support from me. I am confident that the Government will accept the power and logic of my hon. Friend's arguments.
Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 are vital if the Bill is to work. Many people in the countryside and Conservative Members oppose the principle of the right to roam. We do not like it because we believe that it infringes on the rights of ownership and other matters. However, it is not appropriate to consider that now. If we grant that the principle has been lost, that the Bill will be passed and rights of access will exist, it is vital that the detail be crystal clear, precise and completely understood. The measure will work only if walkers understand their responsibilities and owners understand their privileges of


ownership. The Bill must strike a delicate balance between the rights of owners and the rights and obligations of walkers. Imprecision in the Bill's language will lead to confrontation and to the measure falling into disrepute. It will also mean that parts of the Bill will be disputed in court. We do not want that.
In Committee, I said that I was proud of the fact that the Ramblers Association in Wiltshire is working well with the county council and others to establish an embryonic access forum. I hope that it will become a worthwhile and useful organisation once the Bill is enacted. I am worried that, if the detail is not made clear and precision of language is not achieved, such useful co-operation between walkers and landowners will fail and there will be the sort of confrontation and argument that has taken place between walkers and landowners in other parts of England.
On amendment No. 101, it is important to be clear about what we mean by access land. When pressed, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) could not produce an example of a piece of land of less than 10 hectares, which would otherwise be suitable for access under the Bill, but would be prohibited by its size, and land that did not have some other form of access, such as a right of way, path or road. I challenge anyone to name a piece of land measuring less than 10 hectares that would not be covered by the Bill.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: rose—

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman, who is a well known rambler, apparently has such an example.

Mr. Prentice: There may well be crags measuring less than 10 hectares to which mountaineers want access. Surely that is not inconceivable.

Mr. Gray: But the mountain itself, being more than 600 m high, would be fully accessible under the Bill. Crags measuring less than 10 hectares would therefore also be accessible. The hon. Gentleman has not given me an example of a piece of land that would not be accessible—that is, land that is not a mountain measuring more than 600 m, and is not surrounded by access land.

Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gray: Of course I must give way to the president of the Ramblers Association.

Mr. Bennett: I am certain that Windgather Rocks in the Peak district is within the definition in terms of scale.

Mr. Gray: I hope that, as Chairman of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Environment Sub-Committee, the hon. Gentleman will want to take us to the Peak district to inspect the piece of land that he cites. I fear that I do not know it, but I am confident that it will turn out to be surrounded by access land, and therefore to be eligible for access. I shall, however, examine the position in detail later.
More important is the fact that, throughout the nation, there are large areas of otherwise cultivated land, in the centre of which there may be pieces of land that—

possibly temporarily, possibly for a number of years—constitute heathland. Under the Bill, that land would become a small pocket of access land, although it would be foolish to allow that to happen, for a number of reasons.
Let us consider the issue from the point of view of those who want the Bill to succeed. If every pocket handkerchief—the odd hectare here and there—were included in the mapping exercise, the exercise would become bogged down in bureaucracy. It would not be possible to produce an accurate map covering the whole nation and including every minute piece of land. The value of the exercise to walkers would be greatly reduced: what is the point of a map peppered by a variety of otherwise useless bits of land, on which the average walker would not want to walk in any case?
Moreover, the burden on farmers who would have to prepare such land for reasonable access under the terms of the Bill would he disproportionate. They would have to spend a great deal of time and effort, and incur considerable costs, getting the land ready for walkers and safeguarding themselves against the various penalties that the Bill imposes—and probably no one would walk on the land, because it would not be appropriate for walking on.
A minimum of 10 hectares is essential. We should be able to tell farmers, "If it measures less than 10 hectares, do not worry about it: it will not be affected by the Bill." In fact, I would have preferred a larger figure. I think that 10 hectares is extremely modest, and the National Farmers Union agrees that that is a very small area suddenly to become access land. However, I dare say that the NFU, the Country Landowners Association and others would, like me, be prepared to compromise and agree on a minimum of 10 hectares, simply in order to prevent the conflict between landowners and walkers, which hon. Members on both sides of the House are so keen to avoid.
Amendment No. 102 proposes the deletion of the words "wholly or predominantly" and their replacement with a figure. Like the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, I think that 60 per cent. is probably too low a figure. In my view, "wholly or predominantly" means 80 or 90 per cent.; indeed, "wholly" means 100 per cent. To tempt the Government to accept the precision of the definition, however, it seems reasonable to propose a figure of 60 per cent, in relation to moorland, heathland or mountain. I do not understand why the Government do not want to accept that. Surely, if we introduce precision we shall be more likely to avoid conflict between the two interested parties.
The Government may say that the question of a de minimis figure is covered by clause 4(5)(a), which says that the mapping bodies may ignore certain parcels of land if they are too small. That applies, however, only if the mapping bodies are in agreement with the landowner. However, it is possible that, in a spirit of determination to give as much land possible to walkers, the mapping or access body could drive ahead with opening otherwise absurdly small pieces of land to walkers, which would achieve nothing for them or the farmers.
In these amendments and in others that my hon. Friends will move later this evening, it is absolutely crucial that, on this terribly important principle, we should state clearly and precisely what the Bill means for the public and for landowners. I am already concerned that my constituents believe that the right to roam means that they can walk


anywhere. People are saying, "We have a right to roam; we can walk on your fields, gardens or wherever we like." That is the word that has gone out from this place to the public. It is important that, on Report and during the Bill's other stages, we send out messages to the public that there will be access to particular areas.

Mr. David Lepper: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gray: I was about to finish, but of course I shall give way.

Mr. Lepper: Can the hon. Gentleman produce any documentary evidence which he could place on the record to substantiate his claim that there is a general view that people in their thousands are saying that they will be entitled to walk anywhere once the Bill is passed?

Mr. Gray: I am not sure that there is any documentary evidence about people's perceptions, but there is certainly plenty of anecdotal evidence. Many people in my constituency have asked me, "Why are you worried about rights of way? Surely, they will be finished because we will have the right to roam and can walk wherever we like." By definition, any such documentary evidence is extremely unlikely to exist because of the nature of the proposal and the fact that we are still considering the Bill, but there is certainly fairly convincing anecdotal evidence. We shall see—perhaps in a few years, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) might be able to say that there has been no problem. I am concerned that there may be a problem, which is why it is important that the Bill is drafted precisely.
I am in favour of precision in the Bill's wording so that people outside the House know precisely what the right of access is. I fear that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman if he is arguing that the Bill should be woolly and imprecise because he believes that there will be no problem. It is vital that we get it right so that people know precisely what the right of access is. That will reduce time in the courts, but, more importantly, it will ensure that the important relationship between farmers and walkers is preserved, as I believe it should be, in a warm and friendly way.

Mr. Bennett: I hope that the Government do not concede those amendments. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) pleads for precision, but that will come from the mapping. The general public will be able to look at precise maps. I would argue that, certainly in the north and south downs, many small pockets of land would not be included under amendment No. 101. Certainly, on the gritstone edges along the Pennines—areas where people like to rock climb—many fields come up almost to the bottom of the cliffs that are climbed. The moor often slopes away above the climbing area, but in several cases, it has been replaced either by forestry or, in one or two cases, by cultivated fields. I suspect that quite a few areas that are important for access would be lost under the amendment.
On amendment No. 102, such a percentage would not produce precision because the landowner would agree that a bigger area should be considered and say that the percentage is less than 60 per cent. in that bigger area. There would be a huge argument about the area over

which the 60 per cent, should be measured. The amendment is nonsense, and I hope that the Government will stick to their guns.

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Government will stick to their guns. Under amendment No. 101, open country of less than 10 hectares would be excluded from the right of access. As we said in Committee when a similar amendment on common land was debated, we believe that 10 hectares, which is about 25 acres and the equivalent of about 15 football pitches, is substantial and, therefore, could be valuable for the purposes of access.
4.30 pm
To take up the point raised by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), although he may have been referring to another clause, clause 4(5)(a) already provides for the countryside bodies—not only the mapping bodies in agreement with the landowners—to exercise their discretion and to apply a minimum size threshold in deciding whether to map an area of open country. We believe that the decision to determine a threshold is best left with them. I do not disagree in principle with the concept of a de minimis threshold, but it is not wise to pick an arbitrary figure, whatever it may be. The decision is best left to local discretion.
The provision will allow the countryside bodies flexibility in making their decisions. They will be able to consider whether a threshold is appropriate in a particular case and, if necessary, to apply different thresholds in different cases. I do not want to tie the hands of the countryside bodies so as to bind them either to exclude or to include all land of a particular size.
On amendment No. 102, we debated the definition of "predominantly" at length in Committee and I can assure hon. Members that the Government's view has not changed. The amendment would substitute a threshold of 60 per cent, for "wholly or predominantly" in determining whether, in clause 1, the countryside bodies should map land as open country. We chose not to define or replace "predominantly" by reference to any percentage or figure because that would be too prescriptive. The usual definition will therefore apply—that is, "mostly" or "prevailing". I pray in aid the hon. Member for South—East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who was good enough to say in Committee:
I happily accept that a percentage figure would be too specific.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 4 April 2000: c. 119.]
I agree.
On amendment No. 306, I originally thought that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) may have misunderstood the intentions of the Bill. Part I will give people a new right of access to open country and registered common land, subject to sensible restrictions and limitations. It does not affect common land to which there is an existing right of access; access to such land is preserved by clause 15. The amendment would create no new rights of access to common land. However, having listened to his speech, I understand that this is the Great Wishford question.

Mr. Key: indicated assent.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman's concern is whether common land to which a small local population


have privileged access should be opened to all. If the land over which the rights are exercised is registered under the Commons Registration Act 1965, as he said, the statutory right of access under the Bill will extend to the land. If the rights are registered, they are protected under the 1965 Act and there is no question of the Bill interfering with them.
The hon. Gentleman nodded a moment ago, but I was not sure whether he was indicating that the land is explicitly registered common land. If it is woodland, which is not part of the increased right of access under the Bill unless it is voluntarily dedicated by the landowner, I imagine that the Bill would not give general access to it. However, it may be better to examine the precise details of Great Wishford—although I was not specifically briefed on it before the debate, I would like to get it right—and I undertake to reply to the hon. Gentleman. He said that he wrote to me on 15 May; he should certainly have had a reply by now. I apologise and will see that he gets one in the next week.
I have a good deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said about the alternative of inaccessible islands. I accept that there may be some areas to which there is currently no legal right of access. However, I would not wish to exclude such areas automatically, as authorities have powers to provide access to them. The public should be made aware that such areas are currently out of bounds so that they can seek access when appropriate by applying pressure on the access authorities to act.

Mr. David Heath: The right hon. Gentleman's last sentence was helpful. However, the moment that the local authority succeeded in getting access, the land would no longer be inaccessible and would be back on the map. The dilemma, therefore, is not wholly impossible.

Mr. Meacher: If I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, I believe that he has answered his own question.
The Bill will give people a statutory right of access to all common land registered under the Commons Registration Act 1965, subject to provision for excepted land in schedule 1. We gave the public that commitment in our manifesto and we are determined to deliver on it. The amendments do not assist in defining the extent of access under the Bill. I accept the general principle of precision and accuracy, but there are better ways of achieving the Opposition's aims, as I have made clear. I therefore call on the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Green: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for his amendment and for his insight into his constituents' traditional leisure activities, with which they should certainly be allowed to carry on. I hope that my hon. Friend achieves his aim of ensuring that there is no damage to the traditions of the villagers of Great Wishford, once he and the Minister have resolved what may, or may not, be their differences.
Like the Minister, I was not clear about what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was saying in his last intervention. The hon. Gentleman appeared to

be saying that he wished inaccessible land not to be included unless it was accessible. However, he now has a chance to clear that up.

Mr. David Heath: I obviously need to provide clarification. The Minister appeared to be saying that inaccessible land should be included on the map because it may become accessible at some later stage. I was saying that, once such land became accessible, it would no longer be defined as inaccessible and would appear on the map, so the Minister did not have a problem.

Mr. Green: I hope that the House thinks that that has cleared the matter up. The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that, if land is accessible, or even potentially or putatively accessible, it is not inaccessible. He and the Minister described my formulation as imperfect but, to be perfectly honest, it is better than that.
Several points have been made about the 60 per cent. definition that would replace "wholly or predominantly" being too low. As I have said, there are arguments to be made on that. I take the point made my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and others: perhaps I am being too moderate. I can accept my hon. Friends regarding me as too moderate, but being so regarded by the Liberal Democrats is a savage blow from which I shall seek to recover. The point still obtains that there will be confusion and a sense of unfairness if widely different definitions are used in different parts of the country. When the Bill is debated in another place, the Minister should try to give better, clearer guidance on the issue.
On amendment No. 101, the Minister said that he preferred a discretionary de minimis threshold. Again, either he or the countryside bodies should, at the very least, give some kind of guidance, not least because, if individual cases are to be decided locally, there will be serious resource implications. One of the overall problems is that the Bill imposes many extra duties not only on farmers and other landowners but on local authorities, without compensating them with increased resources. Every time the Minister says, "I shall leave that to be decided locally", he adds an extra cost for which he is not providing compensation, so other essential services will be damaged.

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Does he agree that local authorities have plenty of money with which to deal with these matters and to hire, at the snap of a finger, as many people as are needed, whereas farmers and landowners do not have the necessary resources? Local authorities will tell their finance committees that they need the money and will easily be able to do the work, but a further, intolerable strain will be imposed on already hard-pressed farmers and landowners.

Mr. Green: My hon. Friend is right to point out that there will be variations in the ability to pay for the extra work that the Bill imposes on bodies in both the public and private sectors.
The amendment seeks to reduce the amount of extra work, but I hear what the Minister says, and I am sure that the other place will give the Bill full consideration. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1

EXCEPTED LAND FOR PURPOSES OF PART I

Mr. Meacher: I beg to move amendment No. 195, in page 40, leave out line 6 and insert—
'1. Land on which the soil is being, or has at any time within the previous twelve months been, disturbed by any ploughing or drilling undertaken for the purposes of planting or sowing crops or trees.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 196.
Amendment No. 1, in page 40, leave out lines 19 and 20.
Government amendments Nos. 197 to 199, 207 and 187.

Mr. Meacher: Amendments Nos. 195 and 198 give effect to my undertaking in Committee to introduce a clearer definition of the exception from the right of access to cultivated land set out in paragraph 1 of schedule 1.
The amendments provide that land will be excepted if the soil has been disturbed within the previous 12 months by ploughing, drilling or similar agricultural or forestry activities for the purposes of planting or sowing crops or trees. They will ensure reasonable certainty for farmers and walkers about whether land is excepted from the right of access, dependent on whether land has been recently cultivated for the purpose of growing annual crops.

Mr. Soames: I well remember our discussion on this matter in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman may recall that, at the time, I asked him about the reseeding of heather moorland. Enlightened landowners, of which there are many more than he would believe, do their best to try to get rid of rank heather by burning, and if they cannot do so, they try to reseed it, but it takes a long time to set. Will such land also be excluded?

Mr. Meacher: I undertook to examine that issue further, and I am still doing so. I promise that Ministers will respond to that by the time that the Bill reaches the upper House. During the Committee proceedings, which ended only a couple of weeks ago, I offered, perhaps unwisely, to examine many issues. I have worked through a great many of them, but I am taking further soundings on others.
I make it clear that the amendment should be seen as a long stop; it is not intended to provide a mechanism for excluding access to any land that has been improved or semi-improved, which, as I have indicated, is a function of the mapping process. The amendment simply recognises that in certain circumstances the use of open country or registered common land will be incompatible with continued access.
4.45 pm
We recognise that the amendment will not provide for every conceivable circumstance. There may be occasional cases where the agricultural use of the land is incompatible with freedom of access, but where the land does not fall into any of the exceptions in schedule 1. That would apply to multi-annual crops such as rhubarb or vines. We are considering whether a further amendment is necessary in another place for such cases. However, where necessary, it will always remain open to the landowner to

apply to the countryside bodies or national park authorities for a direction to exclude or to restrict access under clause 22. That will ensure that, even where land is not excepted, farmers' interests are safeguarded.
Government amendment No. 197 amends the definition of "building" as used in paragraph 2 of schedule 1, so that the right of access would not extend to land covered by any structure or erection, including tents or caravans. That is a sensible amendment, which will meet a number of the objections raised by hon. Members in Committee.
Government amendment No. 199 responds to the concern expressed in Committee that land would not be excepted from the right of access if it had been developed without planning permission, but the time limits for enforcement action had passed. The amendment rectifies that anomaly.
Another issue was raised in Committee. I was asked to consider further the merits of excepting land used for animal pens from the new right of access. We have therefore tabled amendment No. 196 to introduce an exception for land covered by pens while they are used for the temporary confinement of livestock. Again, I am grateful for the discussion in Committee. That is a sensible amendment.
Amendments Nos. 207 and 187 are consequential to amendment No. 196 and simply move the definition of "livestock" to a new home in the general glossary at clause 41. As a result, the definition will apply to both schedule 1 and schedule 2. I hope that the amendments will be seen as reasonable and will be welcomed. I am aware that the exact definition of "livestock" for the purposes of restrictions on dogs has been the subject of continuing debate. Again, it is one that we will doubtless revisit as the Bill progresses through Parliament.
If I may, I shall leave any response to amendment No. 1 to a later stage.

Mr. James Paice: I welcome the Minister's response on a number of issues—particularly that on livestock pens and buildings—which, as he rightly said, were raised in Committee by me, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and hon. Members from other parties. I note what he says about the definition of "livestock", which I am sure will be revisited. I am glad that he is still considering it. As for dealing with developments that pre-dated planning legislation, I welcome the amendment that he has tabled. He seemed to resist the idea far too strongly in Committee, but I am glad that he has had second thoughts.
My real concern is with the lead amendment, No. 195, which links with amendment No. 198. It refers to the definition of cultivated land. The Minister has referred to not including semi-improved or improved grassland. Understandably, he said the same thing in Committee, but he agreed on a number of occasions to consider or to receive advice on various issues, not least—it is the crucial one—that, in many areas adjoining open country, there will be grassland. Although I welcome the Minister's point about rhubarb and vines, both of which are important niche crops, I suspect that neither of them is very often to be found adjacent to open country, whereas grass usually does occur adjacent to open country.
The problem is whether grass should be defined as a crop. Most farmers would argue—as does the National Farmers Union, which has circulated information to, I suspect, all hon. Members—that grass is a crop. We debated the issue extensively in Committee. For a farmer who is growing grass for grazing or—more important in this context—for hay or silage, a crop of grass is no different from a crop of wheat, barley or anything else.

Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend, who is extremely knowledgeable about these matters, agree that for a hill farmer or a farmer with a holding on inby land, grass is as critical as any crop that he will grow? Indeed, is not grass probably the only crop that such a farmer would grow?

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes my point for me.
Moreover, the point holds true in countless parts of the United Kingdom, including in Wales. We do not have the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) with us today, but, in Committee, he made some extremely important points on the matter. The only crop grown by most farmers in Snowdonia, for example, is grass—which is the means by which they feed their livestock, not only in the summer but through the winter. A grass crop being grown for silage will be harrowed, rolled and fertilised, and, occasionally, even weed killer may be applied to it. The crucial point, however, is that it will not necessarily be ploughed or drilled within a 12-month period.
Grass is just as much a crop as wheat or barley, and people walking across a grass field would damage that crop's potential yield just as much as they would damage the potential yield of a wheat or barley crop by walking across it. The Minister does not seem to have taken that point on board, despite his undertaking to consider all the comments made in Committee.
In many parts of the country, even non-permanent grassland is part of a rotation. However, grassland is rarely part of an annual rotation. As you will know from your own experience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the most common practice is for grassland to be left for two or three years, to give the grass time to improve the land's nutrient value, thereby providing nutrients for subsequent arable crops.

Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the views he has just expressed are particularly relevant to organic farming, in which the need to fix nutrients in the soil is particularly important? Additionally, in Wales, there is ever more organic sheep farming.

Mr. Paice: The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy has sent an admirable substitute. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) is entirely right to say that, in organic farming, grassland rotation is critical as an alternative to artificial fertilisers in providing nutrients for crops. As I know from my original agricultural training, grass crops grown for only one year will have a minimal effect on the soil's nutrient value.
The key point is that grass crops have to be in for two or three years to have any beneficial effect. Grass is sometimes included in a rotation with conventional crops such as wheat, barley, potatoes and other arable crops, but it is left in for two or three years. Although I welcome the Minister's attempt to define "cultivated land", I am worried that the definition in the amendment would exclude that type of country.
In Committee, the Minister said:
It is also unlikely that land that has been recently cultivated would be mapped as open country.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 6 April 2000; c. 172.]
If that is so, there is no need at all for the amendment. Either one has to define cultivation or one has to except land that has been cultivated recently. The Minister proposes a definition of what could best be described as soil disturbance within the previous 12 months, but I do not believe that it is enough. He may well say that the Opposition did not table an alternative amendment. Although that is perfectly true, we knew that the Minister had taken heed of the many points raised by me and other hon. Members on the subject and we had hoped that he would have produced a more substantial amendment.
Amendment No. 195 does not meet our desires or those of the National Farmers Union, which, although it welcomes the Government's recognition that "cultivated" requires further definition, is disappointed by the definition that the Government have used. It makes the following point:
We also feel the tine period of 12 months is too narrow as land on rotational leys can often lay fallow without being ploughed or drilled for three years or more.
That substantiates my argument.
My final point relates to other agricultural schemes such as set-aside and countryside stewardship schemes. Under the set-aside scheme, as it now operates, farmers can leave the same piece of land set-aside for more than a year. It used to be rotational; now it can be the same piece of land. It is self-explanatory that land that is set aside for more than one year will not have the surface of the soil disturbed within a 12-month period. Again, there is a problem that I hope the Minister will reconsider.

Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what the problem is in allowing people access to set-aside land?

Mr. Paice: There are plenty of problems in allowing people access to set-aside land. First, access to it may involve crossing other cultivated land. Secondly, the inclusion of all set-aside land would double or treble the 4 million acres that would be affected by the Bill. That would be a huge alteration in the general perception of the impact of the Bill. Thirdly, the various environmental bodies now recognise that land that is set aside for more than a year is having a beneficial effect, particularly on traditional farmland birds—ground-nesting birds such as skylarks and lapwings. Allowing access to set-aside land would have a damaging impact on that.

Mr. David Heath: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me on another point that we discussed in Committee—namely, that there is at least a potential conflict with the European Union rules that apply to set-aside, in that the land has to be cultivatable but not


cultivated? It is at least arguable that if land that was not cultivated was designated as access land, it would no longer be cultivatable.

Mr. Paice: That is certainly a strong possibility.
Although I welcome the fact that the Government have sought to define cultivated land, I believe that their definition is far too narrow. I do not seek to divide the House on the matter because I welcome the fact that the Government have taken a step in the right direction, but I hope that the Minister will take heed that there are still widespread concerns about the proposed definition, which I am sure will be examined carefully in another place, where I have no doubt that there will be attempts to amend the Bill.
In the meantime, I hope that the Minister will agree to look at the matter again. I hope that he understands the importance of grass as a crop for thousands of farmers who farm adjacent to open land. On that basis, I hope that he will at least agree that he might not have got it entirely right first time.

5 pm

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). It concerns military land.
Even under the Bill, vast expanses of land used by the military from time to time will remain out of bounds. My friends among the ramblers have given me a little list of the areas involved: Castlemartin in Pembrokeshire, the vast expanse of land at Otterburn in Northumberland, Catterick in north Yorkshire, Longmoor on the Surrey-Hampshire border, Salisbury plain, and Watton Brook in Norfolk.
The Bill automatically excludes from the definition of access land all land that is subject to military byelaws. Such byelaws cover all the areas that I listed, but I do not understand the reason for the exclusion. It is perfectly possible for military use and public access to coincide, as happens with Dartmoor, where separate legislative provisions apply. That example shows that there is no reason why the coexistence that I envisage cannot occur.
A powerful ally of the amendment is the Countryside Agency, whose briefing all hon. Members will have received. It states that lines 19 and 20 of schedule 1, covering the point about military land that I have just made, are too restrictive and are unnecessary, given the provisions of clause 26. That clause gives the Secretary of State powers to restrict access to access land if that land is needed for defence or national security purposes. Lines 19 and 20 of schedule 1 are therefore not necessary, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give a little on that point.

Mr. David Heath: I shall be brief. I pay tribute to the Minister, who promised to give serious consideration to points raised by hon. Members in Committee, and has done so. Some definitions have been improved. The right hon. Gentleman undertook to consider the definitions of cultivated land, pens and unauthorised development, for example, and the amendments that he has tabled prove that he has considered them.
However, I fear that I am no more content with the definition of cultivated land than is the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). I agree that huge

difficulties remain with improved grassland and with different rotations that do not fall within the specified annual scheme. In Committee, we discussed under which definition, if any, certain kinds of land fell. Such land included coed cae and ffridd land in Wales, and inby land in northern England. The matter will have to be revisited in another place.
I also hope that more consideration will be given to the definition of livestock. Moving the definition has not improved it one bit—it remains incomplete, with obvious omissions. In Committee, we fastened on the absence of deer from the definition, but we also discussed ostriches, llamas and alpacas. I still prefer the definition that appears in the Agriculture Act 1947, as it can be extended to any domesticated animal. However, even that is deficient, as it does not include horses used purely for recreational purposes.
The hon. Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) are right about military land. I do not see why the Bill should have to define that term several times and make it ever more inclusive of land that probably should be given to access.
The Bill contains provisions for public safety and national security purposes. The Minister assured me that he would look again at the possibility of a regular review being presented to Parliament of the extent of military exclusions from the right of access. I do not know whether he has had any further thoughts, but this seems unnecessary. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman cannot consider that issue today, he will do so before the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Simon Thomas: I shall speak to amendment No. 195, which has already received a lot of attention this afternoon. Before I do so, however, let me say that I am in two minds about amendment No. 1. Most upland land in Wales would be ruled out as it is used for low flying, so a military exception might find favour with some farmers in my constituency.
On amendment No. 195, I have not had the experience in Committee that many right hon. and hon. Members have had, including my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). However, I welcome the fact that the Government have given a definition of cultivated land. What is not so welcome is the fact that the definition does not include some vital fanning practices in Wales, particularly those of sheep farmers. The Committee had a very esoteric debate on the ffridd and coed cae, the Welsh terms for particular types of land that border open access land. I am pleased that no amendment has been brought forward in that respect, as I must admit that I would hate to try to define what ffridd and coed cae might be.
Improved grassland borders on many of what will become access lands. We must address the question of access over that grassland and consider the farmers' interests. The amendment does not recognise that grassland is crop land. The Minister mentioned annual crops when he opened this short debate. I believe that the amendment is too heavily couched in terms of the needs of arable farmers and does not pay enough attention to the needs of sheep farmers. As for the declining but still vital dairy industry in Ceredigion, for example, the silage needs of the dairy farmer are taken from the cut on such fields. When the land is open to access, there may be an


effect on hay and silage crops from large-scale access. The question must be looked at again—in another place, if necessary—and we must try to protect those interests.
The farming industry in Wales is in a deep depression. The income of sheep farmers is falling to as little as £4,500 a year. If we are to open access to cultivated land, the definition of "cultivation" must provide some real protection. I do not think that the amendment goes far enough. The Minister said that there would be a way to appeal through the mapping process, to apply for a direction and opt out, but that is not the answer for the several hundred sheep farmers in my constituency alone who may be affected. I do not think that the Countryside Council for Wales wants to deal with hundreds of appeals on what may be called, for the purposes of this debate, the semi-cultivated or semi-improved land. The definition needs to be far clearer.
Grassland is cultivated land in Wales. Grass that is grown on that land, cut two or three times a year, is a vital income stream for the farmer. It enables him to feed his cattle and sheep, and it enables us to get the good Welsh lamb from the first flush of spring growth. We must ensure that there is protection in the definition.

Mr. Gray: I wish to speak against amendment No. 1, in which I have an obvious constituency interest. It would be very damaging, and I suspect that when the Minister replies to the debate, he may well agree with me. It is none the less important to put my objections to the amendment on the record.
It would be wildly impractical to allow access to, for example, the Salisbury plain training area, which is near my constituency. It is not a question of its being land that might be included were it not for national security reasons, which is a broad, general and grand definition. It needs to be exempted because all sorts of military units can use it from time to time, unpredictably and at short notice. It would be wildly impractical to make it access land. Large areas of it are very dangerous—particularly the impact area, where unexploded bombs lie off the track.
Most important, there is an access regime on Ministry of Defence land that is a great deal more generous than most access regimes throughout England, under an Act passed by the last Conservative Government. We now give access to all suitable military land for recreational purposes on all sensible occasions. However, that is controlled by the military, who say when people may go on to the land and, more important, where they may go. By and large, it is linear access down tracks, and the military clearly and precisely control and restrict where people go on military land. That is eminently sensible. Simply allowing right of access across the whole of the Salisbury plain training area would be dangerous from the point of view of the walker and wholly impractical from the point of view of the military.
A large part of the Salisbury plain training area is privately owned land which is leased to the military. That land, which is not currently used for farming, would, under the provisions of amendment No. 1, not become access land as it is privately owned. At the moment, walkers have access to large acreages in Wiltshire—access that would suddenly be removed from them if

amendment No. 1 were to be allowed. My contention would be that under current regulations—for example, as regards the Salisbury plain training area—more land is available to walkers than would be if amendment No. 1 were accepted. I hope that the Minister will not even consider allowing it.

Mr. Meacher: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to the points made in the debate, including those on grasslands. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) wondered why, if mapping addresses the exclusion of cultivated land, we have the exception in the Bill at all. There are two good reasons. One concerns land that has been improved after the maps have been issued so that access is incompatible with continued access. The other is registered common land, where land is already improved but the right of access would apply any way were it not for the exception.
The hon. Gentleman asked if grass was to be considered a crop for these purposes. The answer is yes. Grass is a crop for the purposes of the amendment, provided it meets the terms of the amended exception—namely, that the land has been ploughed or otherwise disturbed for the purpose of sowing or planting grass or other crops within the past 12 months. We would not expect improved grassland to be mapped in the first place. However, I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the positive answer that he seeks.

Mr. Paice: I have to say that it does not. The point I was trying to get across was that grass is not necessarily an annual crop and may be down for two or three years. Therefore, although it fits all the other aspects of the criteria used by the Minister, it does not fit the 12-month criterion and therefore will not be included. If it is included as part of an arable rotation and is down for two years, it is immediately excluded from the definition.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman raises a matter that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) raised in Committee—namely, that we give consideration to the exception of rotational leys. Again I would not expect land cultivated in this way to be mapped as open countryside in the first place. In the unlikely event of open country being converted to a rotational ley, it will be excepted from access in any year in which the soil has been disturbed. That goes further towards what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire wants, although it does not entirely meet the point that he has just made. I am not prepared to give a commitment at this moment, but I will deliberate further on the matter and see whether it might be appropriate to table an amendment in another place.
5.15 pm
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soarnes), who is not in the Chamber at present, asked whether heather should be included as a crop for the purposes of the definition of cultivated land. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, because it had escaped my memory that we had considered that matter in Committee. I am happy to reassure the House and the hon. Gentleman that it would be considered a crop for the purposes of the definition.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred to military land. He tabled an amendment in Committee that would require the Secretary of State for


Defence to report to Parliament the findings of the five-yearly reviews of long-term directions to restrict or exclude access for reasons of defence. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), indicated that, although the Government could not give any undertakings, we would consider the amendment. I have been most conscientious about that. Officials in my Department and in the Ministry of Defence have certainly held discussions on the issue. The Government wholly agree that there should be effective scrutiny of directions for long-term closures or restrictions on defence grounds, provided, of course, that defence interests are properly safeguarded. That is understandable.
We are considering the most appropriate way to meet the hon. Gentleman's concerns. If we conclude that a change to the Bill is indeed the right approach, we shall table a suitable amendment in another place. I hope that meets his needs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) mentioned military land. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) would ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was compelled to undertake a fresh assessment of the need for restrictions on access to military training lands. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend, however, that that objective will be achieved without the amendment.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already announced, in "In Trust and on Trust: The Strategy for the Defence Estate"—it is amazing how catchy these titles are—which was published on 7 June, that he will review all byelaws imposed under section 14 of the Military Lands Act 1892 and section 2 of the Military Lands Act 1900. Thus the imposition of a separate requirement to consider the need for restrictions under clause 26, which the amendment would perhaps achieve, would merely serve to duplicate that process.
I hope that my explanation has convinced my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish that his amendment is unnecessary and that he will not press it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 196, in page 40, line 18, at end insert—
'.Land covered by pens in use for the temporary reception or detention of livestock.'.
No. 197, in page 40, line 24, leave out ""buildings"" and insert—
'"building" includes any structure or erection and any part of a building as so defined, but does not include any fence or wall, or anything which is a means of access as defined by section 32; and for this purpose "structure" includes any tent, caravan or other temporary or moveable structure;'.
No. 198, in page 40, line 25, at end insert—
' "ploughing" and "drilling" include respectively agricultural or forestry operations similar to ploughing and agricultural or forestry operations similar to drilling;'.
No. 199, in page 41, line 2, at end insert—
'(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply where the development is treated by section 191(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as being lawful for the purposes of that Act.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 2

RIGHTS OF PUBLIC IN RELATION TO ACCESS LAND

Mr. Green: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 38, leave out from first "the" to end of line 39 and insert "next 72 hours".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 27, in page 2, line 39, at end insert—
'( ) Where a person becomes a trespasser because of a failure to comply with a restriction imposed under section 24, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.'.
Amendment No. 103, in page 2, line 39, at end insert—
'(4A) If without lawful authority a person fails to comply with Schedule 2 or with any restriction imposed under Chapter II, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale'.
Amendment No. 104, in page 2, line 41, leave out from "means" to end of line and insert—
'the period from one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset'.
Government amendments Nos. 200 to 206.
Amendment No. 105, in schedule 2, page 42, line 3, leave out "30th June" and insert "31st July".
Amendment No. 83, in page 42, line 5, leave out from "dog" to end of line and insert—
', whether the person is on the access land or is passing or re-passing on a public right of way over the access land'.
Government amendments Nos. 208 and 209.

Mr. Green: This is an important group of amendments. The five amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and me cover three key aspects in which the Bill is deficient and, in some cases, unfair: the penalties for abuse of restrictions on access; the restriction that we want imposed on dangerous night-time access; and—especially importantly—the extension of the dates within which dogs should be kept on a lead while they are on access land. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that those matters are especially vital, although the Government amendments that deal with potential criminal activity on access land are also important. I look forward to the Minister's explanation of them.
I first deal with amendment No. 7. The penalty proposed for breaking the restrictions on access land is merely for someone to be excluded from the owner or tenant farmer's land for the rest of the day. That penalty is inadequate and unfair because farmers will face criminal prosecution under the Bill if they discourage access. There is a need for the penalties to have a rough-and-ready parity.
I suspect, and I hope, that on this divide—if divide there be—the vast majority of farmers and walkers will be responsible, law abiding and sensible. The amendment deals with the small minority in each group. Both minorities should be treated roughly equally by the law, but, as it stands, they will not be.
A penalty of substance is necessary to control irresponsible behaviour. Instead of simply excluding the transgressor from the land of the owner or tenant for the rest of the day, the amendment would remove the transgressor's right to go on to any access land for the


next three days. That not only would provide a more significant penalty, but it would prevent a farmer from being plagued by the same troublemaker day after day. All those who are responsible for working the land would find such a penalty fairer and more practical.
Amendment No. 103 and amendment No. 27, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), suggest that the transgressions covered by the Bill should be criminal offences. The hon. Gentleman is more draconian than we are in the penalties that he wishes to impose, but he will be able to explain the reason for that. None the less, the current drafting of the Bill is unbalanced and unfair on the penalties for transgressors.
Amendment No. 104 deals with the vexed issue of night-time access. I am sure that our proposal would affect a very small minority and we had a long debate about it in Committee.

Ms Candy Atherton: Unlike me, the hon. Gentleman is clearly not a bird watcher. If he were, he would understand that one of the joys of bird watching is rising before dawn and going out into the wilder areas of the countryside so that one is there as the birds awake. If one goes out any later than dawn, one literally misses the bird on the wing. I ask him to consider that point seriously.

Mr. Green: I have considered it. I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because she allows me to make the point that the amendment would not seek to restrict access to the period between dawn and dusk. We specifically say that access should be granted an hour before dawn and an hour after dusk. We understand that people want access for bird watching and for other reasons when the dawn breaks or when the sun sets, and that they need time to get on and off the access land. Our amendment is perfectly sensible and we do not seek the rigid dawn-to-dusk limit that applies in other countries, such as Denmark.

Mr. Tom Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman has not had a go yet, so I give way.

Mr. Levitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; perhaps it will be the first of many goes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) mentioned bird watching, and I have watched badger setts late into the night. It is a wonderful experience, but people will not have the chance to see badgers when they are most active if the hon. Gentleman has his way with the amendment.

Mr. Green: It depends on how many badger setts are on access land. However, let me put the case against the hon. Gentleman's view, because a balance must be struck. The Minister's draft of the Bill prevents camping even though that should be encouraged in certain controlled circumstances. Much of the land that is available for voluntary access allows for camping.
Against the more or less feeble arguments being advanced in favour of 24-hour unlimited access, I hope that hon. Members on the Government Benches recognise

some of the problems. First, there are ill-intentioned people—potential poachers and potential burglars—who should not have the freedom to be in the vicinity of private dwellings at night, with every excuse to be there.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: We know what the hon. Gentleman is going to say about burglars, but what about people who want to get away from light pollution simply to gaze at the stars, or who want to see a shooting comet? Does the hon. Gentleman remember Hale-Bopp streaking across the night sky? To see that in pitch blackness would have been marvellous. What about the star-gazers?

Mr. Green: I remember seeing Hale-Bopp in my constituency—on private land, as it happens. There should be places where there is no light pollution. It is a live issue in my constituency, as it is in many others. Many villages work hard to ensure that there is no light pollution, so that star-gazing can be done, but to say that that has anything to do with the Bill and access land is nonsense.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: My experience of walking at night, which I do quite frequently, is that nowhere is light pollution more manifest than in open country at night, looking down from hills towards built-up areas. The advantages of getting away from light in that way are pretty limited.

Mr. Green: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing common sense to the issue.
The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) should not dismiss the point about burglars. He knows as well as anyone that rural crime is an increasingly serious issue. It would be perverse of the House knowingly to pass a measure that would make it easier for burglars in the countryside.
Secondly, there are safety risks to walkers. I tread delicately into the area of the Burns report, as I do not want to entice Government Members on to the subject, but those who have read the report will be aware that Burns points out that were hunting to be banned, killing foxes at night by lamping and shooting them would become a much more important method of pest control. It is a disturbing prospect that that could take place while inexperienced night-time walkers were walking over open land. [Interruption.] Hon. Members on the Government Benches find that funny, which is bizarre. If they think it funny that people going about their legitimate business—business that they are encouraging by their own action—might lead to someone being shot, they have not understood the seriousness of the situation.
There may well be a specific need for access in certain places in certain circumstances. That can always be negotiated with a landowner. Most landowners are responsible and allow voluntary access. The amendment deals with circumstances where the balance of advantage clearly lies against unrestricted access on all open land at night.
There are other countries with similar legislation. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) spoke about bird watching. In Denmark, the restrictions are stricter than those that we propose, but we believe that the Danes are too restrictive.
I point out to the Minister and his hon. Friends that the amendment is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers, who take seriously the point about crime, as I hope the Minister does. The amendment also has the support of those most responsible for looking after the welfare of animals, the National Gamekeepers Organisation. Ground-nesting birds are more likely to be disturbed by night-time access. With the best intentions, people are much more likely to disturb the birds in the dark, when they cannot see where they are.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Green: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall make progress. He has had several goes.
Amendments Nos. 105 and 83 deal with the control of dogs. Livestock and the wildlife of moors must be protected from unmanaged access, particularly with dogs. Farmers, moorland owners, the Game Conservancy Trust, English Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and others have all said that there is an extreme risk from dogs, unless they are kept properly under control. Amendment No. 105 extends for a further month, until the end of July, the period during which dogs must be on leads. I shall not go into the discursive discussion that took place in Committee about which species will be helped by the amendment, but I know that the Minister is aware that there are some species, some of them rare, that will be breeding during that period. Dogs off leads could be extremely dangerous and damaging to them.
5.30 pm
Amendment No. 83 deals with controls on rights of way crossing access land. It, too, is a practical measure.
The three areas covered by the amendments are controversial, but extremely important. If the Government cannot offer any concessions on any of them, they will be producing a Bill that will be unnecessarily damaging to wildlife and to other important aspects of life in the countryside.

Mr. Bennett: I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments in terms of dogs. If people want to take dogs on to access land, they should have them on a lead all the time.
The proposed night restrictions are ridiculous. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said that other countries in Europe had such restrictions. As I understand it, Denmark is the only one. The British Mountaineering Council says that, in the past, the Czech Republic had these restrictions when it was communist. It appears that that regime had something in common with the Opposition Front Bench.
Many people go out on to access land at night, and cause no problems. When people were trying to get access to areas such as Kinder in the 1930s, they either went on a mass trespass or went on a moonlight walk. That was done repeatedly. It is pleasant to go out at night—particularly in moonlight—and walk over access land. Problems will not be caused by doing so. The Opposition, however, will be causing many problems if they say to walkers that they can be on such land for an hour before a certain time and an hour afterwards. In mountain areas,

there must be a margin of safety. In effect, we would be saying, "You must be off at least an hour before the time limit in case something crops up that is difficult."
One of the most important features of mountain safety is to teach people to map read safely in difficult conditions. People can be up in a fog during the daytime, but one of the ways of teaching people to map read in difficult circumstances is to let them go up a mountain at night with a compass to try to work out the way that they should go across it.
Damage would also be done to many long-distance walks that people try to complete, perhaps crazily, in 24 hours or within another certain time limit. One of the best ones—

Mr. Green: These are things that happen now. They happen on suitable land where landowners give voluntary access. The very fact that they are happening now means that they cannot be prayed in aid in argument for land that is not now used for them.

Mr. Bennett: A nice example is to try to walk, within the area of Snowdon, all the 3,000-footers. For most of the year, that cannot be done within normal daylight hours. If someone is very fit, he might get round at this time of year. However, for most of the year, it is necessary to start or finish in the dark.
Snowdon rocks are quite difficult to walk in the dark, but it is easy to finish the walk on the Carneddau in the dark. None of the tops of the Carneddau has public rights of way. Historically, however, there is access to those areas. Such access has been by virtue of the good will of the landowners. If that works there, people should be able to go for long walks in places such as Bowland and other areas to which we would like to have access.

Mr. Simon Thomas: Speaking as someone who learned to read a map and a compass at night on the mountains above Aberdare, no doubt on private land, may I point out that the fact that access to the Carneddau already exists undermines the hon. Gentleman's point? The 3,000-footers in Wales can already be climbed under current legislation and arrangements. Why should there be night-time access to private land, much of it comprising remote hill farms?

Mr. Bennett: That right exists de facto on the Carneddau, so why should it not exist on the Arans in Wales and in Bowland?

Mr. Levitt: My hon. Friend speaks with due reverence of Kinder in my constituency, but is it not the case that a night-time walk, avoiding land that is currently not open access land, but which would become so under the Act, could be more dangerous than such a walk under the Act when open access will apply to a greater area?

Mr. Bennett: Yes, I accept that point, but I am keen to follow the Whip's instructions and keep my remarks as brief as possible. I simply say that criminal sanctions would be wrong—both from the Whips and in the legislation. We do not want too much litigation in this area; we want co-operation and consent. The Government have got it right, and I hope that they will make it clear


now that there will be no concessions on limiting night-time access and that no criminal sanctions will be applied on these issues.

Mr. David Heath: The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said that Amendment No. 27 was more draconian than the Conservatives' approach. We have come to expect a certain wishy-washy attitude to the Bill from the Conservatives. In fact, the hon. Gentleman is wrong because, although the amendment suggests a higher penalty, it is on a narrow ground. I reject the view that there should be criminalisation of all those who find themselves at fault on the generality of the restrictions in the legislation because they could easily do so unintentionally or through ignorance. I want people to stick to the rules of the game, but I suspect that some will find themselves out of kilter with those rules and I do not want them to be turned into criminals as a result.
However, a penalty is required in the narrow area of a conservation closure to protect our most valuable conservation land, which will be clearly labelled and signposted. We need some sort of sanction in law to ensure that people take that seriously. They must realise that there is a total impediment to destroying what may be a precious habitat and that they do not have unimpeded rights of access. I hope that there will never be circumstances in which someone falls foul of such a sanction, but we need such a penalty to make a clear distinction between the most precious habitats that are protected in that way and the generality of land where such a penalty would be inappropriate. One can argue about whether the penalty should be at level 1, 2 or 3—I have no difficulty with that—but I simply say that it is something that the Government should consider.
I entirely agree with the view on dogs expressed by the hon. Member for Ashford. Current arrangements are weak and I expect them to be strengthened, if not today then at some future stage in our consideration.
We had a long discussion in Committee on night-time access. I do not propose to repeat that, not least because there is enormous scope for people to postulate various hypotheses. I do not necessarily accept that there should be a right of access at night. However, I hope that there will be access at night by agreement. Mountaineers and others have made a good case by rightly pointing out that there is a safety aspect to their activity. They may often find that they have to stay in a place overnight to be safe. I am confused by the Government's attitude. The absolute ban on camping overnight is a barrier to mountain safety. That should be reconsidered.

Mr. Grieve: On Second Reading, I thought that it was extraordinarily odd that the Bill would effectively criminalise such activity, which has been carried out with minimal disturbance for generations. The measure will create problems for those who go walking and climbing.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is not entirely right to say that the Bill criminalises the activity; it discourages it. Nothing in the Bill prevents any activity about which there is agreement under existing legislation. That is crucial. However, mountaineers who gain access to mountains through the Bill will find that, unless they have premeditated an overnight stay, they will not be able to camp. That is a difficulty.
The main problem with a right of access at night is that it removes the ability to challenge a person who is on private access land at night without good reason. I do not refer to legitimate walkers and ramblers. The measure would mean that those who were there for nefarious purposes had a built-in, cast-iron excuse for loitering outside a property at night in the middle of nowhere. The Association of Chief Police Officers perceives that as a problem.
I want to comment on the general penalty of the removal of access rights in the 24-hour period. The current position is nonsense. In Committee, I challenged the idea of the same ownership. How on earth are walkers supposed to know exactly what land belongs to whom without access to a land register? The penalty is unenforceable in its current form. For that reason, and because the penalty is very slight, it is meaningless. We could either improve its ability to be enforced or make it a realistic sanction so that people at least thought twice before disregarding the rules under the schedule. The amendment is not perfect, but if it stresses to the Government that the matter should be reconsidered, I shall support the hon. Member for Ashford in the Lobby and advise my hon. Friends accordingly.

Mr. Hilary Benn: I want to comment briefly on amendment No. 104. First, I shall deal with the point about potential criminality. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) has a point in a sense, but the danger is no greater than the potential for criminality when someone walks along the pavement outside somebody's house. There is a risk, but we must ask whether it is sufficient to outweigh the rights that the Bill seeks to enshrine in law. I believe that it is not.
I say to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that the Bill would not prevent someone from challenging another person. If a farmer comes across someone in the middle of the night who appears to be up to no good, he can challenge that person although he can then claim that he is there to look at the stars or the birds. The Bill does not remove the right of someone who is worried to ask, "What on earth are you up to?"
I want to speak briefly against amendment No. 104. First, it has no logic. Existing rights of way, such as footpaths, are not subject to a dawn-to-dusk restriction. I do not, therefore, understand why such a restriction should apply to the new right. Secondly, as has been said, the amendment could be dangerous in certain circumstances. People might think, "We must hurry to get off the piece of land that we are on before we engage in unlawful activity", when it would clearly not be safe to do so.
Finally, the amendment seems to misunderstand the nature of the right that this part of the Bill provides, for which people have campaigned long and hard for many years. The opportunity simply to listen to the stillness, to hear the night, and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said—to gaze at the stars is priceless. I do not see why the amendment should deny those who want to go out at night the right to enjoy those pleasures.

Mr. Lepper: I want to say something about criminality. When the Government consulted on access, the organisations that currently manage large sections of


open country said that they did not believe that new byelaws or, indeed, new criminal sanctions would be necessary if access were extended. The Association of National Parks Authorities, the National Trust and the Peak District National Park Authority all said exactly that in their responses. Indeed, when more crime than one would wish takes place, it tends to take place on agricultural land near car parks and buildings—land that would not be included in the access provisions.
When malicious damage is perpetrated, not just byelaws, but other parts of the criminal law already exist to deal with it. We have the Criminal Justice Acts and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—and, indeed, the Bill supplements protection already conferred by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Part III contains new sanctions applying to deliberate damage to wildlife and its habitats. Amendment No. 103 is not necessary, and is not thought to be necessary by those responsible for managing the kind of land that the Bill specifies.
Finally, there is a question of access at night. I will not read out all the poem sent to me by my constituent Mr. David Bangs, but I will quote from it. He writes:
The stars still shine in country skies. The light that has travelled for millions of years reaches our eyes where house lights, street lights, entertainment lights, son et lumiere lights, security lights, car lights, industrial lights drown it … County stars, the scudding moon, and silk black night belong to us all!

Mr. Soames: I apologise for not being here at the beginning of this short debate.
I want to make just one point to the Minister. When we had a courteous and, I think, well-informed discussion in Committee about dogs, I made an observation that is reflected in the amendment. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have had to consider many other matters, but I want to reinforce one point.
During a breeding season for ground-nesting birds, especially game birds, like this year's—which has been astonishing wet on high ground—the extra month is critical to the well-being of birds and the successful rearing of chicks by hens. During that period, it is essential for the birds not to be disturbed. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider with even more force what I consider to be the responsible and unanswerable case put by my hon. Friends and me in Committee.

Mr. Meacher: Before I deal with the non-Government amendments, I want to discuss amendments nos. 200 to 205, which seek to give effect to my undertaking in Committee to provide that the commission of any offence on access land should constitute a breach of a restriction under schedule 2. That would render the offender a trespasser and, therefore, liable to be removed from the land.
It is right that landowners should be able to ask those in breach of the criminal law to leave their land, whether or not it is access land. If a landowner suspects that a criminal offence may have been committed, he may well wish to report the matter to the police. I hope that the amendments will reassure landowners that the new right of access in no way obliges them to tolerate criminal activity on their land. We have always emphasised that those who exercise the new right should be responsible, and the amendments are intended to promote that message.
Government amendments Nos. 201 and 206 were tabled in direct response to amendments tabled in Committee, under which the Opposition wanted to add metal detecting to the list of restricted activities in schedule 2. Those found using or carrying metal detectors without permission will become trespassers and might be asked to leave the land. I hope that hon. Members will think those amendments sensible and welcome them.
Government amendment No. 208 will ensure that directions made under paragraph 6 of schedule 2 that end the application of any schedule 1 restriction to an area may be made in anticipation of its becoming access land. Government amendment No. 209 will allow the relevant authority to vary a direction under that paragraph with the owner's consent. I agreed to consider similar amendments that the Opposition tabled in Committee, and Government amendment No. 209 is consistent with that undertaking and with the power in clause 25(1) to vary a direction given under chapter II. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will appreciate the sense of those amendments, which, again, show the Government's sincerity in saying that we would sympathetically and carefully consider proposals made in Committee.
I shall now deal with non-Government amendments. Under amendment No. 7, anyone who breached restrictions on access under schedule 2 would be excluded from all access land for 72 hours. The Bill specifies that those in breach of restrictions should be excluded from the relevant land, or from other access land in the same ownership, for the remainder of that day. It is not realistic to assume that landowners will know whether a walker has breached restrictions in the previous 72 hours on someone else's land; nor would it always be appropriate to impose such a sanction on a walker whose breach of restriction might be extremely minor. Therefore, there is no reason why the ban on returning to access land should extend beyond the rest of the day or to access land in different ownership. Of course, criminal sanctions will continue to be available where offences are committed.
As with the other proposals to criminalise trespass on access land, we do not agree that those who, possibly inadvertently, breach restrictions under clause 24 and who may not cause any harm or damage as a result, should be subject to a potentially substantial fine, as proposed under amendment No. 27. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) referred to the fact that trespass itself has never been a criminal offence in this country, except in very limited circumstances. Parliament has declined to turn trespass into an offence unless some harm or potential for harm can be shown.
Criminalising trespass on land that is closed for conservation reasons would create a wholly unjustifiable inconsistency with important conservation areas that are not access land. To make that a criminal offence would, in our view, be disproportionate. I am not convinced that stepping off a path to take a photo or to admire a view should be made a criminal offence. Where identifiable harm or damage occurs, it will be subject to a criminal penalty. If a certain activity causes a problem, the local authority can make it subject to a byelaw.
Under amendment No. 103, it is proposed that those in breach of a restriction—trespassers—should be subject to a fine of £200. The Government remain pretty unconvinced that those who breach the restrictions on access land should be subject to a penalty that is greater


than if they had trespassed in someone's front garden. Those amendments would make walkers who, perhaps inadvertently, break one of the more minor restrictions, such as bivouacking on a remote fell or swimming in a stream, into criminals. That would be ludicrous, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield rightly said, and I can see that he can barely contain himself about it.
We do not consider that it is necessary to impose a broad, wide-ranging penalty over all access land to penalise what may often be minor breaches of the restrictions. If an activity is not a criminal offence already, there is no reason why it should be simply because it occurs on access land.
I turn now to amendment No. 104 on access at night, which has been the main subject of discussion. As on so many matters, we had a useful and extensive debate in Committee about the merits of allowing the new right of access to apply at night. As the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), said, the argument is finely balanced, and I accept that. We have considered carefully the case for restricting access at night. In doing so, we have kept in mind the need to address the genuine concerns of those who own and manage land affected. We have also borne in mind the principle that restrictions should be applied only when strictly necessary.
Although most people who will benefit from the new right will wish to exercise access during the day, we should not automatically ban access at night. There are various reasons why some people may wish to have access to open countryside at night, and my hon. Friends referred to them extensively. People may simply want enjoy a sunset or sunrise, or to get up to enjoy the nocturnal or early-morning wildlife. More serious walkers may need to be on land very early in the morning, or after dark, if they are undertaking a long hike and wish to reach relatively remote areas. People may also need to shelter overnight, especially if they are caught out by the weather. In addition, some people will wish to challenge their navigational skills through night hikes. That is not unknown and, indeed, night navigation exercises are an important part of mountain leadership training.
I recognise that there are genuinely held concerns, which have been well expressed in the debate, about the impact of night-time access on security and people's safety, but they should not be exaggerated. We are talking about uncultivated land, usually well away from where people live, and we have specifically excluded buildings and their curtilage. The small minority of people who are intent on crime are unlikely to be deterred by the fact they do not have a right to be on the land at night. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), but I shall perhaps deal with it in a moment.
Poaching is already a criminal offence, and we have made it clear in the extensive list of restrictions in schedule 2 that those engaged in such activities, or who carry equipment used for such purposes, will lose their right of access automatically. Moreover, as the National Trust recognises, legitimate and responsible access at night may well help to deter poachers, as there could be more eyes and ears about. That is an important point.
Perhaps most compelling of the arguments against a blanket ban on night-time access is the experience of those who already allow it. The Forestry Commission and the National Trust are prominent examples. They own and manage extensive landholdings in the countryside and have a policy of promoting public access, but night-time access has given rise to few problems and has not required blanket restrictions. Where problems arise, they are more likely to occur at so-called honeypot sites and car parks than in more remote areas.

Mr. Gray: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I shall give way just once because I can feel that the House wants to conclude.

6 pm

Mr. Gray: If all that is true, why are public parks nearly always closed from sunset to sun-up?

Mr. Meacher: Public parks are usually in urban areas, which is a different matter. We are discussing uncultivated and remote areas that may be miles from people's houses.
If, in a particular area—

Mr. Gray: rose—

Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way again.
If there is a legitimate reason to restrict night-time access, that can be dealt with through, for example, local restrictions on access or even byelaws. The Bill provides the flexibility to deal with genuine problems that may arise locally without the need for a blanket ban. Such an approach is easier to police than a blanket ban on all access land. I am not aware of calls to introduce night-time curfews in our towns and cities, where the risk of crime is significantly greater. For all those reasons, I am not inclined to accept restrictions on night access.
I shall quickly deal with amendments Nos. 83 and 105, on the question of dogs. Amendment No. 105 would extend the period during which dogs should be required to be kept on leads on access land to cover the period from 1 March to 31 July each year. As the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said—he was courteous as always—we had an animated but significant discussion of that in Committee. That restricted period is intended to protect livestock and wildlife from disturbance by dogs during, principally, the lambing season and the breeding season for ground-nesting birds. As the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South, explained in Committee, if, in the light of experience, the restricted period needs reviewing, the Bill allows that by giving the Secretary of State—and, in Wales, the National Assembly—the power to amend through regulation.
In addition, the Bill contains provisions for restrictions for conservation and land management to allow tougher controls on dogs where particular circumstances require that, including outright bans. However, we appreciate that there is very real concern about disturbance by dogs, both to wildlife and livestock. We are keen to ensure that the restricted period specified in the Bill is the right one. We are further considering that issue and remain open to the prospect of amending the length of the period at a later stage in our consideration.
Although I am sympathetic to reasonable amendments that would improve the Bill, for all those reasons I do not think that the Opposition have made their case in respect of a 72-hour exclusion or excessive fines, which are disproportionate, or night-time access, though I accept that we need to look further at the restriction on dogs. I hope that, on that basis, they will withdraw their amendments.

Mr. Green: I thank the Minister for the Government amendments on metal detecting and the other matters that arose out of amendments that we tabled in Committee. We are always grateful to see small improvements being made to the Bill.
We have discussed three major issues. I must tell the Minister that the stark fact is that the penalties are still unfair. He spent his time constructing absurdities, referring to people being criminalised for relatively trivial behaviour, but the Bill will criminalise people who put up the wrong type of notice. There should be fairness on both sides. On night-time access, he shot himself in the foot over public parks. If it is right to close public parks in urban areas, which may be near houses, for reasons of personal safety and crime prevention, it seems bizarre that it is not right to have restrictions on night access to parts of rural areas that happen to be near houses. There is an exact parallel between the two, but he fails to recognise that.
I am grateful for what the Minister said on dogs, although it was what he said in Committee: he is aware that there is a big problem, but he will return to it at some later stage. He has had a long time to think since the Bill was in Committee and I can assume only that the strength of our arguments is troubling him. I hope that, eventually, he will come round to our point of view and extend the restricted period. In that regard, I am grateful for the support from the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for the amendment.
The Minister's explanation of why the Government propose to take such action in those important areas is inadequate and I commend our amendments to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 285.

Division No. 228]
[6.5 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Allan, Richard
Browning, Mrs Angela


Amess, David
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Burnett, John


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Burns, Simon


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Burstow, Paul


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Baker, Norman



Baldry, Tony
Cash, William


Ballard, Jackie
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)



Bercow, John
Clappison, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Blunt, Crispin
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Body, Sir Richard



Boswell, Tim
Collins, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Cotter, Brian


Brady, Graham
Cran, James


Brake, Tom
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brand, Dr Peter
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Breed, Colin
Day, Stephen





Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Moore, Michael


Duncan Smith, Iain
Moss, Malcolm


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Norman, Archie


Evans, Nigel
Öpik, Lembit


Faber, David
Ottaway, Richard


Fabricant, Michael
Page, Richard


Flight, Howard
Paice, James


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Paterson, Owen


Foster, Don (Bath)
Pickles, Eric


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Fox, Dr Liam
Prior, David


Garnier, Edward
Randall, John


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gibb, Nick
Rendel, David


Gidley, Sandra
Robathan, Andrew


Gill, Christopher
Robertson, Laurence


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gray, James
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Green, Damian
St Aubyn, Nick


Greenway, John
Sanders, Adrian


Grieve, Dominic
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Hammond, Philip
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Harvey, Nick
Soames, Nicholas


Hawkins, Nick
Spicer, Sir Michael


Heald, Oliver
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Steen, Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Streeter, Gary


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Stunell, Andrew


Horam, John
Swayne, Desmond


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Syms, Robert


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hunter, Andrew
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Jenkin, Bernard
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Key, Robert
Thompson, William


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Townend, John


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tredinnick, David


Lansley, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Tyrie, Andrew


Letwin, Oliver
Walter, Robert


Lidington, David
Waterson, Nigel


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Webb, Steve


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Wells, Bowen


Loughton, Tim
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Luff, Peter
Whittingdale, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


McLoughlin, Patrick



Madel, Sir David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Major, Rt Hon John
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown and


Maples, John



Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Mr. Peter Atkinson.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Begg, Miss Anne


Ainger, Nick
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Allen, Graham
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bennett, Andrew F


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Best, Harold


Ashton, Joe
Betts, Clive


Atherton, Ms Candy
Blackman, Liz


Atkins, Charlotte
Blears, Ms Hazel


Banks, Tony
Blizzard, Bob


Barron, Kevin
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Bayley, Hugh
Borrow, David


Beard, Nigel
Bradley, Keith (Withington)






Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gerrard, Neil


Bradshaw, Ben
Gibson, Dr Ian


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Browne, Desmond
Goggins, Paul


Buck, Ms Karen
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grogan, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gunnell, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Caplin, Ivor
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Casale, Roger
Hanson, David


Caton, Martin
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cawsey, Ian
Healey, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Chaytor, David
Hinchliffe, David


Clapham, Michael
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hoey, Kate


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hope, Phil



Hopkins, Kelvin


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Howells, Dr Kim


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Coaker, Vernon
Humble, Mrs Joan


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hurst, Alan


Coleman, Iain
Hutton, John


Colman, Tony
Iddon, Dr Brian


Connarty, Michael
Illsley, Eric


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Cooper, Yvette
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Corston, Jean
Jamieson, David


Cousins, Jim
Jenkins, Brian


Cranston, Ross
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Crausby, David



Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Darvill, Keith
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davidson, Ian
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Dawson, Hilton
Kemp, Fraser


Dean, Mrs Janet
Khabra, Piara S


Denham, John
Kidney, David


Dobbin, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Doran, Frank
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dowd, Jim
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Drew, David
Lepper, David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Leslie, Christopher


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Levitt, Tom


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Efford, Clive
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Ennis, Jeff
Linton, Martin


Etherington, Bill
Lock, David


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McAvoy, Thomas


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McCabe, Steve


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Flint, Caroline
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Flynn, Paul



Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McDonnell, John


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Foulkes, George
McIsaac, Shona


Galloway, George
Mackinlay, Andrew





McWalter, Tony
Sheerman, Barry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mallaber, Judy
Shipley, Ms Debra


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Singh, Marsha


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Maxton, John
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael



Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Snape, Peter


Miller, Andrew
Soley, Clive


Mitchell, Austin
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moran, Ms Margaret
Steinberg, Gerry


Morley, Elliot
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack



Stringer, Graham


Mountford, Kali
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mudie, George
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)



Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Temple-Morris, Peter


O'Hara, Eddie
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Olner, Bill
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Timms, Stephen


Palmer, Dr Nick
Tipping, Paddy


Pearson, Ian
Todd, Mark


Pickthall, Colin
Trickett, Jon


Pike, Peter L
Truswell, Paul


Plaskitt, James
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pollard, Kerry
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pond, Chris
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pope, Greg
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Pound, Stephen
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Walley, Ms Joan


Primarolo, Dawn
Ward, Ms Claire


Prosser, Gwyn
Wareing, Robert N


Purchase, Ken
Watts, David


Quinn, Lawrie
White, Brian


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)



Rogers, Allan
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rooney, Terry
Wills, Michael


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Winnick, David


Rowlands, Ted
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Roy, Frank
Wood, Mike


Ruddock, Joan
Woodward, Shaun


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wray, James


Salter, Martin
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Wyatt, Derek


Savidge, Malcolm



Sawford, Phil
Tellers for the Noes:


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Tony McNulty and


Shaw, Jonathan
Mr. Don Touhig.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 2

RESTRICTIONS TO BE OBSERRVED BY PERSONS EXERCISING RIGHT OF ACCESS

Mr. Andrew Miller: I beg to move amendment No. 133, in page 41, line 9, leave out "or sailboard", and insert—
'other than a manually propelled vessel'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 134, in page 41, line 9, at end insert—
'(and for this purpose "vessel" includes a sailboard)'.
Amendment No. 132, in clause 40, page 23, line 20, after "3", insert—
'or (Power to extend to waterways)'.
New clause 17—Power to extend to waterways—
'.—(1) The Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) may by order amend the definition of "open country" in section 1(2) so as to include a reference to waterways or to waterways of any description.
(2) An order under this section may modify the provisions of this Part in their application to waterways (whether or not within the definition of "open country" apart from the order).'.

Mr. Miller: This is the canoeists' amendment. While tabling it, I realised that there was a possibility that I may have to admit to having trespassed on many occasions. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) for bringing that to my attention.
In the next few minutes, I hope to convince the House that the law as currently drafted is an absurdity and in need of change. For my legal advice I am relying on the fifth edition of J. G. Riddall's "Introduction to Land Law", which appeared in 1993. Under the heading "Land Covered by Water" Riddall states:
In the case of land covered by water, for example a river, the bed of the river belongs to the fee simple owner of the land through which the river passes.
The landowner therefore owns the river bed, but not the water. Riddall goes on to say:
The riparian owner has the exclusive right of navigation on water which overlies his land.
That is an absurdity, which I shall illustrate later by reference to other countries. Riddall continues:
The public will, however, acquire rights of navigation if … either the riparian owner dedicate the water as a public highway, or … if statutes confer such rights on the public.
Tidal waters, however, are covered in a different way.
In an interesting article in the Canoeist in May, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), explained in some detail why waterways will not be covered by the Bill. I accept that point and I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will make it when he responds. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary relies entirely on the possibility of developing voluntary agreements. I agree with that method in principle, but, as I shall show in a moment, it has not been very successful, despite many efforts by the British Canoe Union. However, my hon. Friend goes on to say:
We realize that this is only a start and there is more to do to ensure voluntary measures work. But I want to assure you—
the reader—
that we are determined to do all we can to ensure that the goal of greater access becomes a reality.
I welcome that statement, and I put on record the thanks of the British Canoe Union for the time that my hon. Friend and his officials have given to the subject.
I shall set out the facts about access in England and Wales. There are some 13,000 miles of waterways, of which 376 rivers have voluntary access agreements.

Canoeists can legitimately use other waterways such as rivers with common law or statutory rights of access; for example, substantial parts of the Severn and the Wye. That category includes some 1,100 miles of waterways. Canoeists can also use canals with licence, which make up another 1,400 miles. Some 10,000 miles are private or have disputed access. That position is not satisfactory.
I deal now with my local river, or perhaps, being a bi-riparian Member, I should say one of my local rivers. The weir on the Dee at Chester has access at certain times of the day, but in researching my remarks I found that, extraordinarily, I may well have unknowingly and regularly broken the law about 15 years ago. I used to go upstream from the weir, where, it transpires, there are no voluntary arrangements. Of course, I may have been within the law because of the tolerance of the local riparian owner.
The riparian owner on one side of a river might be playing ball, but what about the owner on the other side? There may be a mythical line down the centre of the river, with rights of access given by one landowner but not another. Who will enforce such a law? That is a crazy position in which to put people who are engaging in a perfectly harmless pursuit.
I point out to my right hon. Friend the Minister that the situation has existed for a long time. Landowners do not make many attempts to prosecute and a good number generally tolerate use of the waterways, which is welcome. However, the legal position in this country is absurd. To draw attention to that point, I shall briefly describe the position in other countries, which I shall deal with not according to priority but simply in alphabetical order.
Argentina has free sportive navigation on rivers, lakes and other waters. In Australia, canoeists are free to use all waterways. In Canada, there are, for the most part, no restrictions on canoes, although authorisation of the Minister may be required for a limited number of specific lakes, reservoirs and other waters. The citizens of China, which is not known for its tolerance, face no restriction on sailing in inland waters in canoes.
The position in France is interesting: there is a right of passage on all waterways classified as "state domain", comprising those formerly used commercially by boats or for floating or rafting logs. Other rivers are private, but the Administration, by virtue of a 1964 law, have a role to protect the generality of usage and have introduced common-sense rules so that owners, anglers and navigators can live together. My list continues, but in view of the time pressure on the House, I shall not complete it, except to point out that in the United States public use has been widely established.
Hon. Members who do not support the rights of canoeists cannot back up their argument by demonstrating that canoeists have damaged the environment or landowners' interests in any of the countries that I have mentioned.

Mr. Bercow: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's disquisition with interest, and not least to his view on riparian rights. A few moments ago, he observed that a number of waterways admitted very little access, a position that he described as "not satisfactory". Will he


confirm that, on the whole, those that do not admit access are the smaller waterways, and is he arguing that any size criterion should be applicable?

Mr. Miller: It is not only the smaller waterways that pose a problem of access. Of course, size needs to be taken into account. Alongside my cottage in Cheshire runs a tiny brook on which one would have a job to float a canoe, and clearly I am arguing for access not to little streams but to navigable waterways. The 376 waterways that have voluntary agreements include reasonably sized rivers such as the Allen, the Axe, the Dart, the Conwy, the Exe, the Nadder, the Ouse and the Trent.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I, too, am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Why does he make a distinction between, on the one hand, punts or canoes, which he contemplates being able to use waterways, and, on the other hand, sailing boats? What principle is he relying on in making that distinction?

Mr. Miller: I put forward no principle other than the fact that a small vessel paddled by one or two occupants does no discernible damage, is safely controlled and draws a small amount of water.
I end my remarks with the important point that any arrangements, whether voluntary or statutory—I have set out my position on that in the amendments—must be made without any disturbance to the reasonable rights of anglers.
Canoeing is a great sport, and I urge hon. Members of all ages who have not tried it to do so. I ask the House to adopt the principles set out in the amendments. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will accept the amendments because they will give him the power to act if his voluntary approach does not work.

Mr. David Heath: When the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) spoke to the amendment in his name, I suggested that I might be being extremely stupid because I did not understand it. I now realise that I was being extremely stupid, and I want to put that on record. His amendment was entirely in order, and I apologise to him.
I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). There is a lack of access to waterways for canoeists and other users. However, I disagree that canoeists should have a right of access under the Bill. The difficulty lies in the point that the hon. Gentleman made at the end his speech and has to do with reconciling canoeists' interests with those of other users.
6.30 pm
I have some experience of that. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said that he was a bi-riparian Member. I think that I must be a poly-riparian Member. Sometimes, a large part of my constituency is covered in water, which is a problem. Is not the answer to use the new processes of consultation that will come into being as a result of the Bill, particularly the local access forums?
I note that the guidance to the forums gives as one of their intentions the development of recreation and access strategies that cater for a wide range of people. I hope that

that includes the rights of people other than those who wish to have access by foot to open access country. I hope that the Government will have that sort of development of strategy in mind in setting up the bodies, which are so ill defined in the Bill at present.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and welcome the expression of sympathy from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
It is clear that the success of the Bill thus far has thrown into stark relief the problem of access to water. It is certainly true, as my hon. Friend outlined, that our laws on the rights of navigation for unpowered craft on water are wholly out of step with international laws.
Bearing in mind the concerns that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made clear about the rights of users and other people who have a stake in waterways, may I throw in the example of France, where there is a right of passage on all waterways classified as being state domain? On other rivers that are private, thanks to a law of 1964 the French Government have a role to protect the generality of usage. They have introduced common sense rules, so that all who have a stake in waterways know where they stand and have proper access to waterways as they need it—they include anglers, whose rights are properly protected, as my hon. Friend said.
For many canoeists, the challenges lie on the rapidly moving water of upland rivers. That is where the exciting rapids and interesting drops are. Other canoeists prefer smaller lowland rivers, which are unsuitable for powered craft and perhaps appropriate for those who want to try the sport of canoeing, and for younger canoeists.
There are nearly 10,800 miles of such waters. As my hon. Friend made clear, canoeists have access to just 376 of those miles, which is equivalent to just 2.8 per cent. Given that the access agreements that do exist do not generally apply for 365 days a year, canoeists currently have access to less than 1 per cent. of the areas in the definition. Greater access to Britain's upland or smaller lowland water would avoid overuse of waters where there is currently access, and enable canoeists to use waterways that are much nearer to where they live.
Until now, Governments have argued that access to water, or delivering greater access to water, should be achieved through the voluntary approach. In 1983, the Sports Council drafted a statement of intent to try to promote the development of access agreements between landowners, canoeists and the British Canoe Union's representative body in particular. That statement of intent was not even signed because not all the organisations involved agreed to ratify it.
More recently, the British Canoe Union has drawn up a list of 20 target rivers, which it has discussed with the Country Landowners Association. The CLA deserves credit for its efforts to secure voluntary agreements on those 20 target rivers, but absolutely no progress has been made on delivering better access.
On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment highlighted the failure of the voluntary approach to deliver better access to land. The problems are even greater in terms of access to water. Because of the unclear legal situation, where there are


or have been rights for canoeists or voluntary access for canoeists, many of those access arrangements are coming under pressure.
I know that it is a probing amendment, but I hope that Ministers will look at the problem of access to water and offer hope to canoeists of much greater opportunities to canoe in Britain.

Mr. Hogg: I am pretty cautious about the measure. I wish to make just three brief observations.
First, I find it difficult to see what distinction there is between manually propelled vessels and others. Manually propelled vessels include punts, canoes and eights. I do not see what the distinction is between, for example, those and a sailing boat, a pedalo or a small motor boat. If it is in terms of the damage caused, I suppose that an eight causes as much damage as a small motor boat, not to mention the pedalo, which is foot propelled. We are seeing an example of a special interest group having its cause advanced without anyone paying much attention to the principle that underlies it.
Secondly, I have a strong preference for moving forward by way of consultation and voluntary agreements, rather than statute law. I am against the measure for that reason alone.
Thirdly, I am glad that hon. Members are so sensitive about the rights of anglers. So am I, but I am not sure what the difference of principle is between the rights of anglers and those of fox hunters. I strongly suggest that if Members are going to defend the rights of anglers, they will do well to defend the rights of fox hunters, too.

Mr. Meacher: The principle underlying the amendments—better access to waterways—is one that I wholeheartedly support. However, I am not convinced that it warrants a place in this Bill.
We thought hard about what access provisions to include in the Bill. Our first priority was to meet the clear demand for more access for walkers. We took advice from the Countryside Agency and from the Countryside Council for Wales on what other areas to include. Both recommended a more vigorous use of existing mechanisms, such as voluntary agreements, to extend access to land adjoining canals and waterways. We expect much to be achieved by a similar approach to access to water, although I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) says: it is one thing to reach an agreement, but it is another to get it delivered.
We have tabled amendments to the Bill, which we will come to later, which will retain on the statute book part V of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which will allow for access agreements and orders to continue to be made on waterways and the waterside. Such agreements can make specific provision for access for users of canoes.
We recognise, however, that obtaining voluntary access to waterways can be far from straightforward. That is why, in March, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), met the British Canoe Union to listen to its concerns. As a result of that discussion, at the end of last month officials in my Department held a meeting with a range of interest groups, including boaters, anglers and landowners.

We are considering the conclusions of that meeting, but the general feeling of all present was that there were not enough hard facts on the availability of waterways, the scope for new access and the scale and nature of unmet demand. That points to the need for detailed, independent research into access to water. As I say, we are looking at that carefully and will make an announcement shortly.
In the meantime, we have already started promoting voluntary access in a number of areas. The Environment Agency has published a guide to developing voluntary agreements. The booklet, which was produced in conjunction with the angling and canoeing liaison group, provides information for all parties who are seeking to achieve new access for canoeists.
In addition, we have recently issued an updated code of practice on conservation, access and recreation for the Environment Agency and for water and sewerage companies. The code gives practical guidance to those bodies on their access and recreation duties, including the availability of water for recreational pursuits such as canoeing.
I realise that that is only a start. There is much more to do to ensure that voluntary measures work. However, I want to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) that we are determined to do all that we can to ensure that the goal of greater voluntary access to waterways does become a reality.
I hope that, on that basis, my hon. Friend will feel free to withdraw amendment No. 133.

Mr. Miller: I tell the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that I accept—as, I am sure, do all canoeists—that rights go with responsibilities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) has considerable experience in the matter, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take on board the points that he made.
I challenge the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) to try to row his eights up the type of rivers to which my hon. Friend referred. In relation to the top of the Dee, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comment was a bit of a joke.
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister's extremely positive statement. The British Canoe Union is doing a lot of research and is very carefully monitoring the voluntary agreement. I commend to him the arrangements that seem to work in Northern Ireland, where—according to the Canoe Association of Northern Ireland—canoeists have no problems with access to waterways. Only one river in Northern Ireland, the River Bush, is not used by canoeists, and that is a research river for salmon breeding. The Canoe Association has agreed not to use the river except for a short time in the winter. The agreement seems to work and is perhaps the type of approach that his officials might like to examine.
I most sincerely thank my right hon. Friend for his very positive approach, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 200, in page 41, line 10, at end insert—
'(cc) commits any criminal offence,'.

No. 201, in page 41, line 19, at end insert—
'(hh) uses or has with him any metal detector,'.

No. 202, in page 41, line 20, leave out paragraph (i).

No. 203, in page 41, line 22, leave out paragraph (k).

No. 204, in page 41, line 27, leave out paragraph (m).

No. 205, in page 41, line 32, leave out paragraphs (p) and (q).

No. 206, in page 41, line 48, at beginning insert—

'(1) In paragraph 1(hh), "metal detector" means any device designed or adapted for detecting or locating any metal or mineral in the ground.

(2)'.

No. 207, in page 42, leave out lines 11 to 14.

No. 208, in page 42, line 22, leave out "access".

No. 209, in page 42, line 26, at end insert—
'(aa) the variation of any direction given under this paragraph by a subsequent direction so given:. —[Mr. Meacher.]

Mr. Meacher: I beg to move amendment No. 210, in page 42, leave out lines 32 to 35 and insert—
'has the meaning given by section 20.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 150, 151, 154 to 164, 168 to 172 and 184.

Mr. Meacher: The amendments collectively give effect to the designation of the forestry commissioners as the relevant authority for any woodland that has been dedicated to public access in clause 16. We expect that the arrangements will encourage woodland and forestry owners voluntarily to enter into dedications, in the knowledge that, if they require directions under chapter II of the Bill, they will be dealing with an organisation that is familiar with the particular needs of woodland management and that is also responsible for licences and grants for woodland management.
For the sake of clarity, I should very briefly explain that amendments Nos. 210, 150 and 151 insert new provisions in chapter II and schedule 2 to amend the definition of "relevant authority". Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 enable the Countryside Council for Wales to give advice to the commissioners on the restriction or exclusion of access for the purposes of nature conservation under clause 24.
Amendments Nos. 156 to 164 provide for an appeal on, or reference from, a decision of the commissioners, under chapter II, to be heard by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Amendments Nos. 168 to 172 allow for the countryside bodies to give guidance to the commissioners on the exercise of their functions under chapter II. Finally, amendment No. 184 gives the commissioners the same powers of entry to land in the exercise of their functions, under chapter II, as are available to other relevant authorities.
The Forestry Commission will be examining the possibility of dedicating the national forest estate under the powers in clause 16. The commissioners would then be responsible for determining the restrictions and

exclusions on the commission's own estate. I realise that that would entail the creation of a system of Chinese walls—as I think they are called—to ensure that there is a clear separation of duties as between Forest Enterprise, which is responsible for forest management, and the commission staff responsible for determining whether closures should be approved. That would mirror the approaches widely accepted for handling other consents.

Mr. David Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman just say whether the Forestry Commission has any duty whatever to promote recreational access or whether it will be given any such duty?

Mr. Meacher: It does. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is putting emphasis on the word "promote", as opposed to "allow". There is certainly very substantial access to the Forestry Commission estate, and it is certainly my understanding that the Forestry Commission does promote access.
The amendments will enhance the attractiveness of the Bill's dedication element. That is certainly their intention. The Forestry Commission has long had responsibility for managing woodland in the public sector and for regulating the management or woodland in the private sector. The commission is well respected in that role, and the amendments merely represent a logical extension of the commission's responsibilities. I commend the amendments to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

PUBLICATION OF DRAFT MAPS

Mr. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 37, at beginning insert—
;by the end of the period of 32 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 38, leave out "the prescribed period" and insert—
'a period of six months beginning with the day on which the map is issued in draft form'.
Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 3, at end insert—
'(2) Whether the map is confirmed with or without modifications, the map in provisional form shall be issued by the appropriate countryside body no later than six months after the expiry of the period during which representations may be received in respect of the map in draft form under subsection (1)(b)'.
Amendment No. 61, in clause 6, page 4, line 8, at end insert—
'(1A) Any person may appeal—

(a) in the case of land in England, to the Secretary of State; or
(b) in the case of land in Wales, to the National Assembly for Wales;

against the failure to show that land on a map in provisional form as registered common land or as open country.'.


Amendment No. 82, in page 4, line 13, leave out from "brought' to end of line 15 and insert—
'on the ground or grounds that—

( ) the land does not consist of mountain, moor, heath or down, or
( ) the inclusion of the land would serve no useful purpose, or'.

Amendment No. 62, in page 4, line 19, at end insert—
'(3A) An appeal relating to the failure to show any land as registered common land may be brought only on the ground that it is registered common land.'.
Amendment No. 63, in page 4, line 19, at end insert—
'(3B) An appeal relating to the failure to show any land as open country may be brought only on the ground that—

(a) the land does consist wholly or predominantly of mountain, moor, heath or down, and
(b) to the extent that the appropriate countryside body have exercised their discretion under section 4(5)(b) to treat land which is open country as forming part of an area which is not open country, the body ought not to have done so.'.

Government amendment No. 29.
Amendment No. 64, in clause 7, page 4, line 29, leave out from "hearing" to end of line 31.
Government amendment No. 139.
Amendment No. 30, in clause 10, page 6, line 26, leave out "ten" and insert "five".
Amendment No. 58, in clause 11, page 7, line 1, leave out—
'the period within which and'.

Mr. Bennett: This group of amendments deals with the matter of when it will all happen—which is the crucial issue for the Ramblers Association, the British Mountaineering Council and many other people. When the House was passing the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, great promises were made that all rights of way would be included on definitive maps within about five years of the legislation's passage, but 30 years later, that process had still not been completed. It was also promised that there would be many voluntary access agreements, but it took more than 10 years before any such agreements were established in the Peak district. Many national parks have never made any such agreements.
We are therefore greatly concerned at the fact that, at the beginning of the chapter on the right of access, absolutely no time limit has been provided. Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 seek to include a time-limit mechanism in the Bill.
In Committee and in meetings, Ministers have said, "Don't worry, the Countryside Agency has the matter in hand. It is a dynamic organisation, and it will push through mapping with vigour." Although I am not totally convinced that the agency is a dynamic organisation, I shall not say more about that now, as the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee is about to take evidence from its representatives—who may be able to convince us that it is a dynamic organisation.
The Minister will undoubtedly tell us in his reply that the agency really is a dynamic organisation; that we have nothing to fear; and that access maps will be drawn up and issued very quickly. I therefore ask him to tell us the timetable for issuing the maps, and what powers he has

to push the process along. I understand that he claims that he can give the Countryside Agency a direction to get on with the work. I am a bit sceptical about that, as I believe that the Ramblers Association has a legal opinion which says that the Bill does not give him that type of power.
The first three amendments in this group are simply asking the Government for a timetable; how that timetable will be enforced; and how soon I shall be able to tell my constituents and Ramblers Association members not simply that there is an Act of Parliament but that it provides them with the ability to go to those places for which maps have been published so that they can enjoy their right of access.
Our amendments Nos. 61, 82, 62, 63, 64 and 58 really deal with a matter of natural justice. The process should entail the Countryside Agency consulting on the question of which areas should be access land and then drawing up maps. People who object because their land is on the map have a right of appeal. I find it absolutely crazy that the public should not have the right of appeal when a piece of land to which they had been looking forward to gaining access is not included.
I plead with the Government to look sympathetically at the amendments. A balance can be struck—between a right of appeal for a landowner who does not want his land to be included on the map and a right of appeal for individuals or groups who may have campaigned for many years for access to a particular piece of land only to find that it has not been included.

Mr. Paice: I shall speak to amendment No. 82, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends and which goes back to issues that we discussed in Committee. The Government undertook to consider the points that were made in a debate about the straightforward issue of the classification of land as mountain, moor, heath or down. In some ways, the debate could replicate the one we had a while ago about the definition of "predominantly". In this case, however, someone has to judge whether land is predominantly mountain, moor, heath or down and whether there should be the opportunity to appeal against such designation.
The amendment seeks to provide the opportunity for appeal against a designation on the grounds first, that the land does not consist of mountain, moor, heath or down and, secondly, that its inclusion would serve no useful purpose.
I was interested to see that the document from the Countryside Agency, already referred to this afternoon, states quite clearly that
identifying the different types of open country is not a precise science and somebody has to take a view.
To be fair, it then suggests that the Countryside Agency should take that view—and of course at first it will do so. My contention is that there should be some opportunity for appeal if a landowner feels that his or her land has been improperly categorised as mountain, moor, heath or down.
The second part of the amendment deals with circumstances in which it would serve no useful purpose for land to be designated as open land and included in the mapping. I can think of a number of examples, one of which is when a fairly small piece of land is involved. I shall not refer to any precise areas, but it could be a


small piece of land surrounded by non-access land. It might be argued that little would be achieved by mapping such land as open country.
Another example returns to the point that we were discussing earlier—in connection with land which is likely to be eligible for designation as open country only temporarily. We discussed earlier the issue of set-aside land. Another category is land that is shortly to be afforested. There is quite a lot of land on which the owners—the Forestry Commission or others—are planning to plant and have all the necessary permission, but which at the time of mapping may not have been planted. It would serve no useful purpose for such land to be designated only to be planted with trees at a later date and thereby officially excluded.
I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the amendment. I am interested to see that it is quite close to amendment No.63, to which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has just spoken. The hon. Gentleman is also suggesting appeals on the grounds that land does not consist wholly or predominantly of mountain, moor, heath or down, so there is obviously a degree of cross-party interest. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on that amendment too.

Mr. David Heath: I wish to speak to the two amendments that stand in my name. Amendment No. 29 started off in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and has since acquired the imprimatur of the Deputy Prime Minister, no less. No clearer illustration exists of the right hon. Gentleman's wish to encompass the big tent and co-operate with other parties. Of course, the amendment had cross-party support in Committee. I think that it was the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) who first asked why these matters should be dealt with in secret. I am glad that the Minister agreed that what was involved was simply the knee-jerk reaction of civil servants, which is that all hearings should be secret. I am pleased that we are moving away from that climate of secrecy.
Amendment No. 30 deals with an issue that we covered in Committee, so I shall not dwell on it at length. It concerns the timing of the first review. It is very important that the mapping procedure be right. First time round there will inevitably be anomalies, challenges and things that are not quite right, but it would be quite wrong for that position to be maintained for 10 years. It would be far better were there a shorter period preceding the first review. Then we could go on to the 10-year cycle, which is perfectly reasonable, with no lack of clarity or indecision besetting landowners or those who want access to land.
When we discussed the issue in Committee, the view was that there was a benefit to stability and that in any case there was nothing to stop the first review being carried out within the 10-year period. My view is that it would be an advantage to specify that the first review should be within five years.
Let me briefly touch on the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). There is a need for the Government to make it absolutely clear that a strict timetable is necessary for the work to get under way. Whether that is on the face of the Bill or

whether it is in clear guidance from Ministers to countryside bodies is immaterial; it is important that there are signposts throughout the process so that we are absolutely sure that, once the Bill becomes law, there is no inordinate delay in clarifying the situation. That is in everybody's interest.
My only concern, which I expressed in Committee, is whether there are sufficient resources to do the job effectively. Many parts of the country have experienced long delays in implementing the rights of way legislation. Very often that is due to a lack of resources. In this instance, we are dealing with national bodies rather than local government, but the same constraints apply. I hope that the Minister will make it clear this evening that there is a clear timetable for implementation and that there are sufficient resources to do the job effectively.

Mr. Levitt: I support amendment No. 2 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I should like to start with a declaration of non-interest, in that my constituency contains more than half the open access land in the Peak district, which contains more than half the open access land in England. In that sense, one might think that there were not many opportunities to extend open access in that area, but that is not the case. A considerable number of areas are identical in topography and geography to those which have open access and I hope that open access will be extended to those areas.
It is important that landowners in my constituency and elsewhere know very well that the responsible right to roam is coming. They need to know what time scale to work to. It is only light that a campaign that has continued for nigh on 70 years should have some idea, now the goalposts are in sight, of how many yards are left to go. If we accept the amendment we shall miss the opportunity of having everything in place by the 70th anniversary of the 1932 Kinder trespass, which took place in my constituency, but if my hon. Friend the Minister can give a categorical assurance that, by the time of the 75th anniversary, all the Bill's aims will have been achieved, I shall be very happy to hear it.

7 pm

Mr. Hogg: I want to make some observations on amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 61. I am in favour of the Bill containing a prescribed timetable. The arguments for insisting that a timetable be set out and met are real. I hope that the Minister will agree.
It is a good thing to do away with the concept of a time scale that depends on regulation, and hence on Ministers. I hope that amendment No. 3, which sets out the time period of six months, is accepted.
However, I oppose amendment No. 61. It is not right for the House to give a wider right of appeal to the country at large, for the very good reason that to do so would be to expose farmers and landowners to much greater expense than the circumstances warrant.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Muffin): Amendments Nos. 2, 3 4 and 58 would impose a timetable on the countryside bodies in undertaking their duties to draw up maps of open countryside and registered common land under chapter I of the Bill.


In contemplating these amendments, I had some sympathy with the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) I usually do, on a wide range of issues. He and I—and, I am sure, most hon. Members—want the countryside bodies to make good progress in drawing up maps of open countryside.
I assure my hon. Friend that the Countryside Agency will be dynamic. When it gives evidence to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, of which my hon. Friend is Chairman, I hope that it will succeed in convincing him that it is dynamic.
Several hon. Members asked about a timetable. The Bill allows for a fast track for access to common land and to land above 600 m. We anticipate that that could come into effect within about two years—well in time for the 75th anniversary of the Kinder trespass mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt). That fast-track access will apply to an estimated 2,000 square miles, which is no small matter.
However, we recognise that, in the main, the introduction of the right of access must await the publication of conclusive maps by the countryside bodies. I know that the Countryside Agency is ready to embark on this challenge, and that it will make good progress to the best of its ability. I am sure that the National Assembly for Wales and the Countryside Council for Wales will want to make equally rapid progress, but I do not think it right to impose an arbitrary timetable on the countryside bodies' responsible for drawing up maps when some uncertainties remain about the weight of the task ahead of them.
Amendment No. 3 would cause the period for consultation on draft maps of open country and registered common land to be fixed in legislation at six months. The Bill as it stands provides for regulations under clause 11(2)(f) to determine how long the period for representations on draft maps should be.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish is concerned to ensure that progress in mapping open country is not delayed by unnecessarily lengthy consultation. However, we also want to ensure that there is a full process of consultation between all parties, and that there is flexibility in the regulations that allows us to specify the precise term of consultation.

Mr. Hogg: Is the Minister able to tell the House the time frame that he is contemplating in the regulations?

Mr. Mullin: I am told that the regulations should be available within a couple of months of the Bill's receiving Royal Assent.

Mr. Bennett: What are they going to say?

Mr. Mullin: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks about the time frame in the regulations. I said a moment ago that there will be a flexibility in the regulations that will allow us to specify the length of the time frame. That is the point of flexibility.

Mr. Hogg: Will you tell the House what the time frame—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is still on his feet. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot conduct himself like that. It just cannot be done.

Mr. Mullin: The answer is that I cannot provide that information. The regulations will provide for flexibility. We do not think that prescribing a period of six months will meet all the eventualities that are likely to arise.

Mr. Bennett: I can accept that my hon. Friend the Minister wants flexibility, but are we talking about a period of between six and 12 months? He must have some idea. I know that the temptation for the people who draft legislation is to leave what they have not sorted out to regulations. However, can my hon. Friend share with the House the time span that he is considering putting into the regulations?

Mr. Mullin: I cannot share that information with the House at this precise moment, but that is not to say that I believe that the period for receiving representations will need to last as long as six months. We will, however, need to consider that matter carefully with the countryside bodies and others as part of the detailed process of preparing for the maps. That consideration has not yet taken place so I cannot tell my hon. Friend off the top my head exactly what we have in mind.
I should add that the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales already have powers to direct the countryside bodies, under section 3(1) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, that would allow them to require the Countryside Agency or the Countryside Council for Wales to take steps to prepare the maps if they thought that there some foot-dragging was going on. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said that the ramblers had a legal opinion suggesting that the Secretary of State does not have powers to direct, but the Government believe that he does.
I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish to secure the rapid implementation of the right of access, and I give him my assurance that we shall work closely with the Countryside Agency to ensure that that happens. However, I cannot accept that the amendments that he tabled would assist us in reaching our mutual objective, and I must ask him therefore to withdraw them.
Amendment No. 82 would alter the grounds of appeal to remove the reference to the land being predominantly mountain, moor, heath or down, and to add a ground that the inclusion of the land would serve no useful purpose. We have already debated the reason for the inclusion of the word "predominantly", and the grounds of appeal reflect that.
I do not agree that there needs to be a ground that the inclusion of the land would serve no useful purpose, regardless of its size. The countryside bodies have been given discretion not to include land if it is too small to be of useful purpose. We recognise that there will be land that fits that category, but we think that it is best left to discretion.
Amendments Nos 61, 62 and 63 would provide a right of appeal to members of the public. We have provided a right of appeal for those with an interest in the land


because, to be candid, that meets what we are obliged to do under the European convention on human rights. Opening up that right of appeal to the general public is not a requirement of the convention. Members of the general public cannot be said to be affected to the same degree as those with a direct financial or other interest in the land—a point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).
A general right of appeal could also result in an unmanageable number of appeals. That would have the undesirable result of significantly delaying the length of time that it would take to produce conclusive maps, and therefore for the right to commence.
Given that other amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish were about getting rid of delays, it does not seem wise to introduce an amendment that is likely to extend delays, possibly by a significant amount. We believe that consultation is the best way to involve members of the public in the mapping process. I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment.
Clause 10 provides for the countryside bodies to review the maps of open country and registered common land 10 years after the publication a the initial conclusive maps. Amendment No. 30, tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), would require the review to take place just five years after the initial mapping exercise.
We are determined that the initial mapping of open country will be a thorough and open process. As I made clear in Committee, there will be substantial opportunities for the public and landowners to contribute towards the drawing up of the maps of open country. Landowners will have the right of appeal against the showing of land on provisional maps. I am not convinced that we should cause the countryside bodies to embark on a fresh review of the maps just five years after completing the initial exercise. The maps are intended to give rise to a period of stability and confidence for both users and landowners. Users should not be faced with the uncertainty that maps of open country will become out of date and subject to further review just a few years after their publication.
I must also stress that the period between reviews mentioned in clause 10 is a maximum, not a minimum, threshold. It is entirely possible that the countryside bodies would wish to embark on an early review if, for example, they discovered significant errors on a map, or were aware of a significant change of land use in a locality. That flexibility of response is best vested in the countryside bodies themselves.
In addition, it is open to the Secretary of State to vary the frequency between reviews by making regulations to that effect under clause 10(3). I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will be reassured on that point.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that he originally drafted the proposals in amendment No. 29, and that they were nationalised. [Interruption.] Yes, without compensation, but he will have the satisfaction of knowing that his words are taken seriously. The amendment removes the provision for appeals to be heard in private. I am happy to tell the House that we are content for the offending provision to be deleted from the Bill.

Amendment No. 139 provides that when a document has been certified as a copy of a conclusive map by the appropriate countryside body, it may be accepted as evidence in court unless the contrary is proven. The amendment reflects the commitment given in Committee to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) to consider a similar provision. We think that it could be of assistance in dealing with prosecution cases, such as those relating to the erection of misleading notices under clause 14, or obstruction of means of access under clause 37. It will put beyond doubt the status of maps submitted to court. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that such a provision will be useful.

Mr. Bennett: I am a little disappointed in the Minister's response. I accept his rebuke that if we want to allow more appeals to take place, we should have tabled an amendment introducing a time limit so that the process is not delayed. That would have been one way of dealing with the issue. It would have been far better to have the appeals. However, if, as the Minister says, the process will be carried out through consultation, I hope that, in the guidance that he gives the Countryside Agency, he will make it clear that, in the case of a hotly contested area, the agency should err on the side of including it at that stage and allowing the landowner to appeal against its inclusion, rather than erring on the side of omission, which would mean that there would be no appeal procedure. I can see the temptation for the Countryside Agency to leave out an area because there will be no appeal, but I hope that the regulations will make it clear that if there is any doubt about an area it should be put in—after which time there can be an appeal against its inclusion—rather than being left out.
I am disappointed about the timing aspect. We should have had a clear steer from the Minister. He wants two years to complete the map of upland areas, which are easy to define. I should have thought he could have said that, in a further two years, the whole process could be completed. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) made the point that the landowners want certainty. It is important in promoting tourism to be able to say to people, "The maps are there; in this area, you have so many acres or hectares or access land, so come to this very attractive part of the countryside." Part of the package must be to tell the landowners that there are benefits in having access land in their area. The sooner we get the maps, the sooner we can demonstrate to landowners that the provisions are in their interests as well as those of walkers, and people who want access.
Having expressed my disappointment at the fact that my proposal that there should be a clear timetable has not been accepted, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7

APPEAL PROCEDURE

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 4, line 29, leave out from "hearing" to end of line 31 and insert ", or".— [Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Clause 9

MAPS IN CONCLUSIVE FORM

Amendment made: No. 139, in page 6, line 16, at end insert—
'( ) A document purporting to be certified on behalf of the appropriate countryside body to be a copy of or of any part of a map in conclusive form issued by that body for the purposes of this Part shall be receivable in evidence and shall be deemed, unless the contrary is shown, to be such a copy.'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Clause 10

REVIEW OF MAPS

Amendment made: No. 140, in page 6, line 17, leave out "has" and insert "have".—[Mr. Mullin.]

Clause 12

EFFECT OF RIGHT OF ACCESS ON RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF OWNERS

Mr. Mullin: I beg to move amendment No. 141, in page 7, line 36, at end insert—
'( ) The use of any land by the inhabitants of any locality for the purposes of open—air recreation in the exercise of the right conferred by section 2(1) is to be disregarded in determining whether the land has become a town or village green.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 8, in clause 13, page 8, line 7, leave out "natural".
Government amendments Nos. 142 to 144, 189 and 211.
Government new clause 23—Effect of Part I on powers to stop up or divert highways.
Government amendments Nos. 220 to 224.

Mr. Mullin: Amendment No. 141 was inspired by an Opposition amendment tabled in Committee to clarify the position on village greens. Under existing legislation, it is possible to register land as a village green where it has been used by local inhabitants for lawful sports and pastimes as of right for not less than 20 years.
The amendment makes it clear that the new right of access is not intended to result in prescriptive rights being acquired over access land. It ensures that the use of any land by virtue of the right of access under the Bill will not be able to support a claim for the registration of a village or town green under the Commons Registration Act 1965. The amendment makes similar provision in this respect for village greens as clause 12(3) of the Bill now makes for public rights of way.

Mr. Bennett: On amendment No. 141, has the Minister seen the briefing from the Countryside Agency, which suggests that the Government have made a mess of the amendment? Is he doing anything to meet its concerns on this point?

Mr. Mullin: I have not seen the briefing from the Countryside Agency on the subject, but if I get any further information, I shall come back to my hon. Friend.
Amendment No. 142 follows up a point raised in Committee. My right hon. Friend explained that in response to amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), the Government would consider whether further clarification was needed regarding the liability position in relation to trees and plants. The amendment makes it clear that occupiers will bear no liability towards those exercising the right of access in relation to any plant, shrub or tree.
The need for amendments Nos. 143 and 144 was drawn to our attention by Opposition Members—we are nothing if not a listening Government. The amendments will exclude from the new right of access land to which there is already a public right of access under section 19 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979—that is, monuments in the ownership or guardianship of the Secretary of State, English Heritage, or local authorities. This is in accordance with our policy of excluding from the ambit of Part I land to which the public has an existing statutory right of access.
Amendments Nos. 189, 211, and 220 to 224 will allow for the retention on the statute book of Part V of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. As many hon. Members will know, the 1949 Act was a landmark in the history of countryside access. As amended by the Countryside Act 1968, it provided for access agreements and access orders to be made over mountain, moor, heath, down, river and canalside, foreshore and woodland—a far more extensive interpretation of "open country" than is contained in the Bill before us. However, the 1949 Act failed to open up extensive areas of open country to the public. About 50,000 hectares of agreement land have been negotiated under the Act in the past fifty years, almost entirely over moorland. On the eve of a statutory right of access to mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land, the 1949 Act still offers some merits that we wish to retain. That is the purpose of the amendments.
Finally, Government new clause 23 proposes to limit the effect of the new right of access created by part I on statutory powers to stop up or divert a highway or any highway. In a nutshell, the new clause proposes to stop the right of access being used as an excuse to stop up existing rights of way. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Green: I rise to speak principally to amendment No. 8, but it would be churlish not to acknowledge our gratitude to the Government for accepting what the Minister described as the inspiration of some of our amendments—and, I hope, speeches to them—in Committee.
Like the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I have an advantage over the Minister, in that I have seen the Countryside Agency's objection to the amendment. The agency makes the point that while it supports the aims of the amendment, as worded, the amendment
could make it impossible to register access land as a green in future even where it has a long pattern of qualifying use by local inhabitants. Caselaw requires evidence of 20 years' qualifying local use right up to the date of application to register land as a green. The amendment as worded could prevent an application in, say, three years' time to register an established green from succeeding. A saving is required to avoid this unintended effect.


Perhaps the Minister will wish to return to this matter.
I fear that Government amendment No. 142 may give rise to difficulties, rising possibly to absurdities. It says that
any plant, shrub or tree, of whatever origin, is to be regarded as a natural feature of the landscape.
I do not aspire to the levels of expertise of others in the House about the natural world, but an amendment solemnly declaring plants, shrubs and trees to be natural features appears, on the surface, otiose. If not, I suspect that the practical effects may present difficulties.
One has a lurid vision of one of the few irresponsible landowners setting out closely planted rows of cactuses round the edge of one of the small parcels of access land that the Minister is keen on, thus making it impossible to gain entry. Since these plants would be natural features, they would be fine under the terms of the Bill. I know what the Government are seeking to achieve through the amendment, but I am sure that they will not achieve it. If they do, there will be some unintended bad consequences as well. I suspect that those in another place may wish to return to the issue.
Amendment No. 8 is a small amendment, in that it proposes to leave out the word "natural". This is an extremely important issue for the landowners and farmers who will be most affected by the clause. The amendment seeks to remove the uncertainty arising from use of the word "natural" in clause 13, referring to owners' liability. As the Bill stands, owners' liability is excluded only in relation to the so-called natural features of the landscape. The Government have sought to deal with this by giving a wide definition of natural features, to include any plant, shrub or tree.
I am afraid that that does not go far enough and does not solve the problem of the possible unintended consequences of this restriction on owners' liability. I am aware that the Government appreciate the problem of the liability of owners of access land and that they have made efforts to tackle the legitimate concerns of occupiers' liability.
The Minister will be aware that there have been some problems; his right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment wrongly quoted a letter from the Country Landowners Association and the British Mountaineering Council about the issue. The basic concerns of landowners, that the Bill should remove liability from all features of the landscape, cannot be coped with by the Bill unless the Government accept our amendment or something similar.
As the Bill stands, a walker could climb over a fragile stone wall to access land. He could damage the wall—paying no compensation—injure himself and then sue the owner for personal damages. That is patently an absurdity and an unfairness. Even the fear of that will have practical consequences. Insurance companies will see this eventuality as a possibility; that is what insurance companies are for. They try to anticipate the unexpected, quantify it and put a price on it. Owners will have to pay increased premiums, as well as paying for repairs to walls. Every wall will have to be subject to a risk assessment.
The situation is inequitable and goes against the grain of English law on liability. It may well weaken the Government's case on the compliance of the Bill with the

Human Rights Act 1998. It is not just walls; there are other farming necessities, such as fences or ditches. As it stands, the Bill will give great pause to any farmer who wishes to use barbed wire fences on the sort of open land that will become access land. I cannot believe that that is the Government's intention.
If a ditch has to go because a farmer decides that he is not prepared to pay the extra insurance premium, presumably, after the ditch—which was there for drainage purposes—goes, a swamp will be created. I wonder whether the swamp that replaces the ditch if drainage is made worse will be regarded as a natural feature.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Surely landowners might decide to eliminate all manmade features—for example, bridges—on the grounds that they would not be liable if a person struggled across a stream, but would be liable if they went across a bridge which proved to be defective. The same would apply to stiles. The sensible farmer might remove what is currently provided for the benefit of those using the land.

Mr. Green: My right hon. and learned Friend is characteristically right. In Committee, we had discussions along these lines. The effect of the Bill is to induce perverse and damaging behaviour on the part of farmers and landowners. The Minister might find that the Bill was considerably improved by acceptance of the amendments.
If the Minister does not wish to take my word for it, I recommend that he read the advice of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which says:
If the public are given a new statutory "right of access" … they must accept that the countryside contains hazards and they might cause themselves injury.
That is fair enough.
People who damage themselves while trespassing are less likely to try and sue the estate than people who have a right of access. Suing is increasingly a problem because of the rise of the no-win no-fee solicitors who advertise their services widely.
The Minister is in danger of creating a mare's nest; the combination of other factors with this inadequate part of the Bill could lead to an increase in insurance premiums which would badly affect hard-pressed farmers and lead to an increase in frivolous litigation. If the Minister and the Government admit—as they clearly do in the amendments they propose—that natural features should be defined so widely as to try to encompass everything on which walkers could injure themselves, why do they not go the whole hog and omit the word "natural"? Occupiers' liability would thus be removed if walkers damaged themselves on features of the landscape.

Mr. David Heath: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for accepting the principle underlying the point I made in Committee on plants and trees. There was obviously a problem; a certain liability had not been considered. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for doing as he said and introducing an amendment.
I remain concerned about the word "natural". I share many of the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green)—although not when he says that, in order to avoid liability for the effects of plants and trees, landowners will create stockades of cactuses around their estates.

Mr. Green: I was making that point in relation to small parcels of land. Of course, people would not erect such


constructions around estates, but they might do so around those small pieces of land that the Government do not want excluded from the Bill.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful explanation. However, the fact that there was no liability in respect of accidental harm to a person using the land would not remove responsibility for maintaining access if the land was designated access land; there would still be an obstruction. However, I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was making a serious point.
The key problem relates to natural features of the landscape. Everyone who has read the Bill dispassionately has latched on to that term and wondered what it would mean in law. We discussed the difficulties in Committee. We referred to man-made, but historic, features; for example, former mineral workings. Does a pit from which building stone or lead is being extracted form a natural feature, or does it not? Are we not simply creating work for lawyers?
I am indebted to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), who was most helpful to us in Committee. He referred to the degree of liability that would apply under the measure as drafted. The hon. Gentleman is learned in the law and, in his view, the duty of care that would apply to a person using land for access would be that specified under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. He gave that definition as
such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to see that he—
the trespasser—
does not suffer injury on the premises.
We went on to discuss whether a greater duty of care would be implied under the measure, because it dealt not with trespassers but with people who had a right of access to land. Did that imply that a slightly higher duty of care would exist?
We did not receive a wholly satisfactory answer from the Minister for the Environment. He said that
such liability would be at a very low level—the duty of common humanity—as set out in the case of Herrington v. British Railways Board.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 April 2000; c. 391–98.]
Is that a correct interpretation of the level of care required? What are the implications for a landowner? If the amendment is not accepted, how will a landowner ensure that he or she is properly undertaking that duty of care to a person walking on his or her land in respect of hazards that are not natural?
There would be some difficulty in complying with that duty. If the feature was something that could be repaired—for example, the bridge to which the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred—the best solution would be to remove it altogether. However, if something was not repairable—a hazard in its own right—presumably landowners would have a duty to provide warning signs, unless, of course, they were likely to find themselves in breach of clause 14 by erecting a notice that deterred people from access to the land.
There is a significant problem that has not yet been addressed. The word "natural" is unhelpful in this context; it merely provides the grounds for legal challenge. Ministers must reconsider the matter before it reaches another place, where people with far more knowledge of

the law than I will dissect our considerations and come to a view that will, I suspect, not be helpful to the Government.

Mr. Simon Thomas: I too want to make a few remarks on amendment No. 8. I welcome the opportunity to discuss that important provision, because it tests the Government's thinking on the matter.
The farming communities in which we live are all man-made. The features of the landscape that we see every day are man-made—that is one of the joys of our countryside. It has an intimate link with the population that has lived there for many thousands of years.
There is an example on my doorstep. I live near an iron age Celtic fort. It is much walked and may well come under the provisions of the Bill—depending on the exact definition of cultivated land—because there is grassland around it. On top of the fort, there is a 19th-century structure. I am told that it is supposed to be one of Wellington's cannons—to commemorate the battle of Waterloo.
Sometimes students from the university try to climb up or abseil down that cannon. According to the definition in the Bill, the cannon would be a man-made structure. What liability would apply to its private landowner? If a person on that land was injured, how would the landowner be liable? Would it be for the fort, the dykes, the ditches, the cannon, or the access to the land—the fences, the stiles and steep grazing land?
More thought should be given to that aspect of the measure. There is a real fear that farmers will be liable for actions over which they have no control. When farmers have access land, they cannot control where individuals go on it. They might erect signs, but they cannot mark every danger on their land. If they put up a general sign, they might fall foul of other provisions, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) pointed out.
There are other hazardous items on farmland—especially in upland areas—such as small reservoirs or abandoned farm buildings. Electric fences are sometimes used to move stock from one piece of grazing land to another. How would those be brought within the ambit of the Bill? Amendment No. 8 offers a considerable improvement by removing the word "natural". Unless the Government can produce a clearer definition of "natural", we shall have some difficulties.
Public liability insurance is another consideration. That may put an extra burden on farmers and landowners. I do not know how many farmers are able to keep up their insurance payments in these hard times; such payments may be the first to go. However, under the provisions of the Bill, there is no doubt that there will be an increase in public liability insurance payments. I hope that farmers will not face too large an increase in those payments. So that they do not, I hope that the Minister will give a more detailed explanation of the liability provisions in relation to man-made and natural features on a landowner's land.

Mr. Bennett: I shall be brief. I do not support the Opposition's amendment, which would remove the word "natural", but I think that the Government should give a little more thought to the issue. It is not a question of exempting the landowner totally from responsibility, but the Government should consider the possible application of health and safety legislation to this issue.
It is reasonable that landowners should take the precautions that are necessary to make their land safe for the people who work on it. Anything that makes that land unsafe for the people who work on it should be considered the liability of the landowner, but anything that occurs as a result of the activities of someone walking across the land should be a matter for which the walker should consider having insurance. One of the messages that the Bill should send out is that walkers should consider insurance cover for what they may do to others and for the accidents that may occur for which no reasonable landowner could be held responsible.
The Government should not accept the amendment, but they should give the matter a little further thought. The extent to which landowners should be liable should be based on the provisions in the health and safety legislation which say that the landowner should ensure that his estate is safe for the people who normally work on it.

Mr. Hogg: Rather to my surprise, I find myself agreeing with much of what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has just said. Walkers are primarily responsible for their own welfare and it is wrong to impose on landowners or farmers too high a standard of care. I speak from experience. For the past 30 or 35 years, my chief pastime has been mountain walking and easy mountaineering. Most of my climbing has been done in the Alps rather than in the United Kingdom, but similar principles apply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) suggested that we should remove the word "natural" from the clause 13. One must face the fact that many features of hills, mountains and the uplands are in a grey area when it comes to defining them as natural or not. For example, are the slabs of rock used to cross a stream or to bridge a gulf a natural feature? The material is natural, but it has been put in place by humans. Cairns on a mountain—or steinmen as they are variously called—mark the track, but they are made of natural material. They are piled up in heaps and they can, and do, fall on the people sitting below them. Are those features natural or not? Such points need to be clarified if the Bill is to have a sensible and not a deleterious effect.
7.45 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford also suggested that the concept of a farmer's or landowner's liability is likely to have perverse consequences, and he is right. On mountains in the Alps and in the United Kingdom, safety can be improved by human introductions such as fixed ropes. People sometimes prefer to use steps or ladders as they go down steep scree slopes. In the Peak district, slabs of rock often go across boggy land so as to protect it. Bridges are used to cross streams and stiles are used to cross stone walls. If landowners have liability for those man-made facilities—which are provided as aids for those who visit the land—but not for the natural land, they will remove the aids. Why should they put up a fixed rope or bridge, or place slabs across boggy land, if they are liable for any defect in them? If they do absolutely nothing, they will not be liable. That is a perverse result and I hope that the Government do not intend it.
Mountains in the United Kingdom are working and farming areas. They are used for sheep farming and sheep very often need to be wired in. Inevitably, coils of wire

are found buried in the heather; that is quite usual. In fact, barbed wire is frequently found buried in the heather. The idea that farmers can sweep an area clean of materials that have been there for many years—perhaps decades—to ensure that everyone is as safe as if the place were a bowling green is absurd. They cannot do that. I therefore fear that many landowners will face substantial claims from people who do not watch where they put their feet and who then litigate; or that many modest farmers, particularly in the uplands, will have to take out substantial insurance cover.
I am against the proposal, but we have to deal with it as it is. People like me visit the hills and they are basically responsible for their own safety and welfare. They should not look to anyone else to look after them save in a crisis, when they will be jolly pleased to receive assistance. However, when they approach a track or a bridge, they should exercise a bit of care and a certain amount of good sense. The Government's proposal is the nanny state writ large.

Mr. Jim Dobbin: I wish to speak to amendment No. 141 and about village greens.
In June 1999, in an historic decision in the Lords, it was declared on behalf of Sunningwell parish council that a piece of land called the Glebe was deemed to be a village green and that legislation could apply to newly registered greens. That meant that if a local community had used a piece of land for sports and pastimes for not less than 20 years, the land would have a legitimate claim for village green status. That would protect the land from development.
I have such a village green in my constituency in the village of Castleton. I shall be guided by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I spoke to the Principal Clerk this morning about what I want to say. The land, which is called Cowm Top, is the subject of a High Court appeal by a developer. He is appealing against Rochdale metropolitan borough council and a constituent, Cindy Huxley, who is the secretary of Castleton residents association.
The land has been designated as a village green by the local authority and is being registered as such. The Castleton residents association is 1,100 strong and has rightly pursued this case. It has right on its side, because an independent panel has deemed the land to be a village green. The fact that the developer has refused to accept the council's decision has resulted in Cindy Huxley, who represents the residents association, being identified as personally responsible for any court costs. That would mean financial disaster for her personally, so the association finds itself unable to contest the appeal. It is a case of a large developer using its financial power to try to smash a group of local residents who were pursuing what they deemed to be a correctly taken decision. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take account of the difficulties faced by local residents groups and other voluntary groups in the process.
Government amendment No. 141 should offer local communities some protection from big developers. My concern is that it may not do so. It would not offer my constituent, Cindy Huxley, any protection in her situation. I seek some assurance from my hon. Friend. For me, it is an issue of great public interest.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: It strikes me that there is something entirely inequitable in the


situation of a landowner who previously enjoyed the land that he owned without encumbrances, and who now finds a duty placed on him to make that land available to the general public. One would ordinarily expect the landowner to receive compensation for the change in the status of the property that he enjoys, but on the contrary, he is penalised by having to take out expensive insurance in order to accommodate the change in the availability of his land.
I suspect that the problems to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) drew attention—the question of what constitutes a natural or a man-made feature—will be tested to the extreme in the courts, to the great profit of his own profession.
Given that the public will now enjoy a new right of access to the property, they should have an obligation to insure themselves against any liabilities that may occur as a result of their exercise of that new right. That would be much the best way forward. The landlord should be prosecuted only if he lays traps for the walkers and others who occupy his land, for which the existing common law would be sufficient remedy.

Mr. Green: I am grateful for the support for the principles behind amendment No. 8 from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and others, including the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). I intend to press the amendment to a Division.

Mr. Mullin: Before I deal with amendment No. 8, I shall respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) about the Countryside Agency's briefing on amendment No. 141. He will not be surprised to hear that after mature reflection, we do not consider amendment No. 141 to be poorly drafted. We accept that it could prevent a village green from being claimed, if less than 20 years' use could be shown before the right of access came into force; but once the right was in force, there would be a public right of access in any case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) also touched on amendment No. 141. The Bill does not affect the law on village greens generally. It simply stops the right of access giving rise to new greens. Therefore, I am not sure that it helps the case that he raised. My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not go into the details of the case, although he has put on the record an important issue.
On amendment No. 8, there is a slight air of unreality about the debate. It was remarked several times in Committee, not least by me, that one must pinch oneself from time to time to recall that there already exists access to millions of acres of land, without any of the dire consequences that some Opposition Members foresee. I shall return to that point.
The liability that occupiers will owe to those exercising the new right of access has attracted considerable interest and debate both inside and outside Parliament. It is also an issue on which there is some convergence of views.
Let me reiterate the Government's position, which endorses the position in law that those walking in open countryside should bear primary responsibility for their own safety. There is no disagreement among us on that. People must accept that walking in open countryside

carries risks, albeit usually relatively low ones. Mountains, crags and fast-flowing water are some of the more obvious examples of natural hazards that people need to respect and for which they should take sensible precautions. The Bill removes all liability of occupiers in relation to such features of the land. That is right, and I know that that provision has been widely welcomed.
I accept that some people want the Government to go further to remove all liability in relation to all features, whether natural or man-made. The Government have listened carefully to arguments put forward by the Country Landowners Association and by the Opposition for reducing occupiers' liability still further, but we were not and we still are not persuaded that occupiers should be absolved of all responsibility for man-made features of the landscape.
We heard reference—by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), I think, but I apologise if it was another hon. Member—to barbed wire concealed in the ground. People who leave rolls of barbed wire in a concealed position should be responsible for the consequences. I make no apology for that.

Mr. Hogg: The Minister is robust about that, but does he recognise that rolls of wire may have been left in the heather for many, many years, and that there is no realistic prospect of a farmer or landowner now discovering rolls of wire that have been left in the heather for the past 10 or 15 years?

Mr. Mullin: There is no getting away from the fact that someone who leaves barbed wire in a concealed position must take responsibility for the consequences. That example was given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and as he said, I respond to it robustly. That is my view.
Do we want to eliminate all liability for things that are dangerous, particularly if hidden from view where people, including children, are known to walk? I do not believe so.

Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Swayne: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mullin: If hon. Gentlemen relax for a moment, there will be an opportunity for them to get in.
I consider that it is right to retain some liability—albeit at a minimal level—so as not to encourage landowners to disregard the safety of those on their land.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister. Can he reassure me that the liability will remain the same as it was previously, and that it is the liability that a landowner would have towards a trespasser on his land? As long as that is the position, I for one would be wholly content. If the liability is being changed because there is to be a right of public access, the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is entirely valid.

Mr. Mullin: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. He has put his finger on the fact that the measure does not change the position, and I am grateful to him for pointing that out.
The courts have found that occupiers owe a "duty of common humanity" even towards those uninvited on their land. That is reflected in the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. No prizes for guessing who was in government then.
We must remember that the duty of common humanity is set at a very low level. Let us take the National Trust as an example. The trust has extensive experience of managing nearly 1,000 square miles of open countryside and millions of visitors annually, and it has had only a handful of claims in any year.
The figures suggest that in 1997–98, the trust had about 50 million visitors, from which only 10 claims arose. We are not moving into uncharted waters. There is already access to millions of acres. We are not attempting to change the liability that applies. It is mistaken of hon. Members to conjure up dire problems that are likely to arise. They do not arise on the millions of acres to which there is already access, and there is no reason to suppose that they will arise on the land that will later be opened up to access. There is no evidence—

8 pm

Mr. Green: The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument must apply to natural features as well as man-made features. If it is true about man-made features, it should be true also about natural features. Why are the Government moving all their amendments on natural features? The Minister cannot have it both ways, which he is seeking to do in deploying his argument.

Mr. Mullin: I am not seeking to have the argument both ways. We are not seeking to change the level of liability. We have no evidence that those who currently occupy open country subject to statutory rights of access are required to pay higher insurance premiums than others who occupy such land from which the public are excluded.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) talked about the encouragement of perverse behaviour by landowners. In my view, most landowners are reasonable and responsible people. However, I accept that one or two are perverse. The name of Mr. Nicholas van Hoogstraten comes to mind. We should not allow ourselves to be swayed because there are a few extremely difficult customers, and we shall not be. Overall, I think that once the provisions are bedded in, most landowners will be pleasantly surprised to discover that they do not face any serious problems.
The Government's decision to remove all occupiers' liability in relation to natural features will place occupiers of access land in a more favourable legal position than other landowners. Given that and the minimal duty of common humanity in relation to man-made features, I believe that we have struck the right balance between the interests of occupiers and the need to provide reasonable protection for the public. I believe that making a distinction between natural and man-made features is the right place to draw the line, and I therefore ask that the amendment—

Mr. Bennett: May I take my hon. Friend back to town and village greens? I suggest that he should have further mature reflection. He is saying that there will not be possibilities for registering more town and village greens

in future, and that that does not matter because people will have access under the Bill, when enacted, as they would have had access under registration. The one advantage of registration is that it stops development. By leaving the amendment as it is, my hon. Friend is making it impossible to register new greens, and it will be possible for land to disappear for development. I think that my hon. Friend should reconsider the matter.

Mr. Mullin: On most issues, I take my hon. Friend seriously, including the general issue that is before us. I give him the undertaking that he seeks, and I shall reconsider the matter. I shall write to him after further reflection has taken place. I can make no commitment. I have concluded my remarks and I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: For the benefit of the—

Mr. Mullin: I may have misled you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] No, I think that I was right the first time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Amendment No. 8 will be taken after amendment No. 141 has been put to the House, which is a Government amendment. I am dealing now with amendment No. 141.

Mr. Green: The Minister has withdrawn it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the Minister asked the Opposition to withdraw amendment No. 8. [Interruption.] Order. The Opposition expressed a desire to vote on it. The Question now is that amendment No. 141 be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 8, in page 8, line 7, leave out "natural".—[Mr. Green.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 282.

Division No. 229]
[8.5 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Burnett, John


Allan, Richard
Burns, Simon


Amess, David
Burstow, Paul


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James



Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cash, William


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Baker, Norman



Baldry, Tony
Clappison, James


Ballard, Jackie
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bercow, John



Beresford, Sir Paul
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Blunt, Crispin
Collins, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Cran, James


Boswell, Tim
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Brady, Graham
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Brake, Tom
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brand, Dr Peter
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Breed, Colin
Evans, Nigel


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Faber, David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Flight, Howard






Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Moss, Malcolm


Foster, Don (Bath)
Nicholls, Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Norman, Archie


Fox, Dr Liam
Ottaway, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Page, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Pace, James


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Paterson, Owen


Gibb, Nick
Pickles, Eric


Gidley, Sandra
Prior, David


Gill, Christopher
Randall, John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Rendel, David


Gray, James
Robathan, Andrew


Green, Damian
Robertson, Laurence


Greenway, John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Grieve, Dominic
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hammond, Philip
St Aubyn, Nick


Harvey Nick
Sanders, Adrian


Hawkins, Nick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Smith, sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Soames Nicholas


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Spicer, Sir Michael


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hunter, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Streeter, Gary


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Stunell, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard
Swayne, Desmond


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Syms, Robert



Tapsell, Sir Peter


Key, Robert
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Kirkbirde, Miss Julie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Lansley, Andrew
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Leigh, Edward
Townend, John


Letwin, Oliver
Tredinnick, David


Lidington, David
Trend, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tyrie, Andrew


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Walter, Robert


Loughton, Tim
Waterson, Nigel


Luff, Peter
Webb, Steve


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Whittingdale, John


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Yeo, Tim


Madel, Sir David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Major, Rt Hon John



Maples, John
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Stephen Day and Mr. Peter Atkinson.


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)



Moore, Michael





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Best, Harold


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Betts, Clive


Ainger, Nick
Blackman, Liz


Allen, Graham
Blears, Ms Hazel


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blizzard, Bob


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Ashton, Joe
Borrow, David


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Atkins, Charlotte
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Banks, Tony
Bradshaw, Ben


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Battle, John



Bayley, Hugh
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Beard, Nigel
Browne, Desmond


Begg, Miss Anne
Burden, Richard


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Butler, Mrs Christine


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Bennett, Andrew F
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)





Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hanson, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Caplin, Ivor
Healey, John


Caton, Martin
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cawsey, Ian
Hill, Keith


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hinchliffe, David


Chaytor, David
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clapham, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hope, Phil


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hopkins, Kelvin



Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Howells, Dr Kim


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Coaker, Vernon
Humble, Mrs Joan


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hurst, Alan


Coleman, Iain
Hutton, John


Colman, Tony
Iddon, Dr Brian


Connarty, Michael
Illsley, Eric


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Corston, Jean
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cousins, Jim
Jamieson, David


Cranston, Ross
Jenkins, Brian


Crausby, David
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)



Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)



Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)



Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Darvill, Keith
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Davidson, Ian
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Kemp, Fraser


Dawson, Hilton
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Khabra, Piara S


Denham, John
Kidney, David


Dobbin, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Doran, Frank
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dowd, Jim
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Drew, David
Lepper, David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Leslie, Christopher


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Levitt, Tom


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Ennis, Jeff
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Etherington, Bill
Linton, Martin


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McAvoy, Thomas


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McCabe, Steve


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Flint, Caroline
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Flynn, Paul



Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McDonnell, John


Foulkes, George
McIsaac, Shona


Galloway, George
McNulty, Tony


Gardiner, Barry
MacShane, Denis


Gerrard, Neil
McWalter, Tony


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mallaber, Judy


Godman, Dr Norman A
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Goggins, Paul
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Grocott, Bruce
Maxton, John


Grogan, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Gunnell, John
Meale, Alan


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)






Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Miller, Andrew



Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Snape, Peter


Morley, Elliot
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Squire, Ms Rachel



Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mountford, Kali
Steinberg, Gerry


Mudie, George
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mullin, Chris
Stringer, Graham


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)



O'Hara, Eddie
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Olner, Bill
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


>Organ, Mrs Diana
Temple-Morris, Peter


Palmer, Dr Nick
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pearson, Ian
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pickthall, Colin
Timms, Stephen


Pike, Peter L
Tipping, Paddy


Plaskitt, James
Todd, Mark


Pollard, Kerry
Touhig, Don


Pond, Chris
Trickett, Jon


Pope, Greg
Truswell, Paul


Pound, Stephen
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Primarolo, Dawn
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Prosser, Gwyn
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Purchase, Ken
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Quinn, Lawrie
Tynan, Bill


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Walley, Ms Joan


Rooney, Terry
Ward, Ms Claire


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wareing, Robert N


Rowlands, Ted
Watts, David


Roy, Frank
White, Brian


Ruddock, Joan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Ryan, Ms Joan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Salter, Martin



Sarwar, Mohammad
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Savidge, Malcolm
Wills, Michael


Sawford, Phil
Winnick, David


Sedgemore, Brian
Wood, Mike


Shaw, Jonathan
Woodward, Shaun


Sheerman, Barry
Wray, James


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Wyatt, Derek


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes: Mrs. Anne McGuire and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)



Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 13

OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY

Amendment made: No. 142, in page 8, line 8, at end insert—
'(6B) For the purposes of subsection (6A) above, any plant, shrub or tree, of whatever origin, is to be regarded as a natural feature of the landscape."'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Clause 15

RIGHTS OF ACCESS UNDER OTHER ENACTMENTS

Amendments made: No. 143, in page 8, line 32, leave out "or".

No. 144, in page 8, line 35, at end insert—
'or
(d) the public have access to it under subsection (1) of section 19 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (public access to monuments under public control) or would have access to it under that subsection but for any provision of subsections (2) to (9) of that section.'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Clause 16

DEDICATION OF LAND AS ACCESS LAND

Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 9, line 1, leave out "90" and insert "21".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 84, in page 9, line 3, after "land", insert—
'for a period of nor less than 20 years or in perpetuity'.
No. 111, in page 9, line 4, after "Part", insert—
'for a period of not less than 21 years or in perpetuity'.

Mr. Paice: The amendments seek to press the Government to encourage landowners voluntarily to dedicate their land as access land. We debated that in Committee when we tabled an amendment for a shorter period of 10 years, when the Minister said:
Landowners can take a number of routes if they wish to dedicate their land in the short term, but clause 16—
which is the relevant clause—
is not one of them, as it is intended to deal with the long term.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 April 2000; c. 412.]
That I accept, but we then come to the definition of long term.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no facility for anyone to dedicate land for a period of 20 years or more, and if we want to encourage voluntary dedication, we need to consider that period. Obviously, if someone is prepared to dedicate land for 90 years, which is the effective period in the Bill, that is to be welcomed, and we obviously hope that that will happen. But our experience in Britain is that the more one regulates the less opportunity one creates. Many landowners who might be interested in dedicating access for 20 years, which is a long time in any individual's life and in terms of the management of any property, would not consider dedicating it for a minimum period of 90 years, or even on a permanent basis. If he did that, he would be imposing those dedication rights on his heirs and successors, who may have different priorities for the property.
The amendments reduce the period of ownership to 21 years and propose a dedication period of not less than 20 years. They are a good balance between the short-term opportunities—the Minister will doubtless repeat them; we accept their existence—and the very long-term opportunities, for which the Bill provides. I doubt whether those long-term opportunities will lead to much voluntary access. As I said in Committee, if we consider the past 90 years, we can think of all manner of historic events that have occurred globally and in agriculture and land use. The world has moved on dramatically. Who can


foresee the events of the next 90 years? I suggest that few people would be prepared to commit their land for that length of time.
There is no better example than the 1975 legislation that the previous Labour Government passed to protect three generations of inheritance of tenancies of agricultural land. As anyone in the land industry knows, farmers consequently stopped letting their land because they were not prepared to do that for the period that three generations could cover—possibly 90 years. When the Conservative Government removed that right and reduced protection for tenants, the farmland that was leased increased significantly. The 1975 example is clearly analogous to clause 16.
The Minister was right to suggest that there were other ways in which to encourage farmers to lease their land in the short term. However, the long-term period for which the Bill provides is excessive. We need a sensible balance between regulating or protecting the right of access, albeit voluntarily granted, and creating opportunities for people to do that. The amendments would provide a great opportunity for landowners to dedicate their land.

Mr. David Kidney: Does my hon. Friend the Minister remember that, in Committee, I mentioned two possible obstacles to dedication? Dedication is a good idea, which may lead to expansion of the areas of land over which the new right of access can be exercised. The two possible statutory objections relate to local authorities and similar public bodies, and to trustees of the land.
If a dedication is perceived as a disposal of land, local authorities are under a statutory duty to obtain the best price for the disposal. That would prevent them from giving away the land as a dedication. I suggested that the Bill might include a provision that would ensure that a dedication did not count as a disposal for other statutory purposes. If trustees dedicate the land rather than selling it and realising its full value, their action may be perceived as a breach of trust, unless the Bill provides that a dedication is a charitable purpose.
My hon. Friend the Minister kindly said that he would consider those two issues. We are on Report, yet no amendment has been tabled to deal with those matters.
I should be grateful to know whether my hon. Friend believes that they are not worthy of attention, or whether he is still considering them.

Mr. Mullin: Clause 16 provides an opportunity for landowners voluntarily to dedicate land to the statutory right on a permanent basis. Once the dedication has been made, the land will be treated in the same way as open country and registered common land. The dedication will also bind successors in title.
The amendments propose dedications that are not in perpetuity, but for a minimum of 20 years. That is not the purpose of the clause. The short answer to the points that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) made is that there are already many other routes by which landowners may provide access to land, and receive grants or incentives for doing that, such as the countryside stewardship scheme, which is managed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the woodland grant scheme, which is operated by the Forestry Commission.
If landowners wish to allow access to their land on a less permanent basis than that offered by clause 16, such opportunities are available to them. Indeed, landowners

may, if they wish, throw open their land to the public with no formality. The Bill is about providing permanence and security of access.
If a freeholder dedicates land, it should be in perpetuity. If a leaseholder dedicates land, it should be for a minimum of 90 years. The Bill provides for that. I therefore ask the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire to withdraw the amendment.
We are still considering the two points that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) made. The Bill has some way to go, and we shall come back to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Bennett: What about those people who got relief on taxation—I believe on death duties—by promising access? Will the clause resolve that?

Mr. Mullin: I do not believe that that is the clause's intention. However, if someone tells me that I am wrong, I shall let my hon. Friend know.

Mr. Paice: That was one of the least convincing replies to a debate that the Minister has given in Committee or on Report. Perhaps he will improve on that, and provide an even less convincing reply later.
I made it clear that I accept the existence of the short-term measures, such as the countryside stewardship scheme and the woodland grants scheme, but they are only for short periods. We were trying to establish right of access for a longer period, which is not as long as perpetuity or 90 years. If I challenged the Minister, he would not be able to give an example of a scheme that allowed dedication for as long as 20 years. The schemes to which he referred last from five to 10 years, not 20 years, for which we would provide.
The amendments were tabled in the spirit of the Bill and were intended to encourage voluntary access. I am sorry that the Minister cannot accept them. However, as he said, there is some way to go. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17

BYELAWS

Mr. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 10, line 23, at end insert—
'(6A) The relevant confirming authority shall publish guidance to access authorities as to the matters which may be included in such byelaws and the purpose thereof with the intention that byelaws in the areas of each access authority shall be consistent with the byelaws in any other access authority.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 112, in clause 18, page 10, line 30, at end insert—

'(1A) The access authority shall review under this section the adequacy of warden arrangements in respect of any access land in their area.

(1B) A review under this section must be undertaken—

(a) in the case of the first review, not more than one year after that land became access land, and
(b) in the case of subsequent reviews, not more than five years after the previous review.'.



Amendment No. 85, in clause 19, page 11, line 6, leave out "may" and insert—
'shall, where appropriate or expedient, at the request of the owner or occupier of any access land, or of land adjoining access land, or otherwise,'.
Government amendments Nos. 148, 149 and 212.

Mr. Bennett: The amendments have been tabled to ascertain what will happen to the byelaws. Walkers can consider schedule 2 and work out their duties and responsibilities on access. They must then examine the byelaws. We should not have a large variety of byelaws throughout the country so that walkers are subject to one restriction in one area and a different restriction in another area. Most people who enjoy access will not examine byelaws carefully.
The Peak district national park used to be good at putting up notices stating that it was a national park. All the byelaws were printed on the back of the notices in small print, which was difficult to read. As far as I can see, no one ever read them.
By and large, we want byelaws to be consistent throughout the country, with differences applying only in exceptional circumstances. The amendment is very similar to an amendment tabled in Committee—I think the Government said that they would have another look at it—aimed at finding out exactly what would be in the byelaws, and whether we would be better off with a set of model byelaws presented by the Government. That might have the particular benefit of ensuring that, if people wanted to do the same thing in two areas, they did it in the same way.

Mr. Grieve: The issue raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is certainly interesting. As I said earlier in an intervention, the whole question of the relationship between the byelaws and schedule 2 strikes me as important.
I should say at the outset that I do not favour legislation on rights of access. I believe I said on Second Reading that I did not consider such legislation necessary or desirable. Given that rights of access are to be provided, however, I do not think they should be used to fetter or restrict existing rights. In particular, I do not think that trespassers should be turned into criminals without very good reason. I think that the Minister agreed with that earlier.
There will clearly be a difficulty. The byelaws envisage the possibility that local authorities, national parks authorities or whatever other authorities may be involved will start to impose regulations that, on occasion, will turn mischiefs that might previously have been described as no more than trespasses into criminal offences. What happens to a trespasser who decides to sleep in a bivvy bag on access land? I must confess that I have done that many times in the past when the land in question has not been access land, and, technically, I have probably been trespassing. Nevertheless, I believe that my activity caused no problems to anyone, and that my presence was not noticed 10 minutes after I departed in the early hours to go off and climb some new mountain.
The hon. Gentleman's point is very pertinent, but I am not entirely persuaded that uniformity is the answer. I am always anxious when powers are delegated from the House to others for the purpose of creating criminal offences. There may, for instance, be unintended consequences, because the arrangements have not been thought through properly.
I shall be interested to hear from the Minister how it is envisaged to implement the proposals. Will guidelines be issued for the purpose of matters in schedule 2, in regard to which it would be appropriate to make byelaws, and for the purpose of those in regard to which that would not be appropriate? It is clear that byelaws might be suitable in some areas covered by the schedule, although some are probably covered by the existing criminal law. I am thinking of offences of interfering with plants or trees, for instance. In other respects, however, it is difficult to see what byelaws there should be. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten those of us who did not have the opportunity of participating in Committee about what is envisaged for such cases, and to reassure both the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and me.
As I say, the hon. Gentleman may be right: perhaps we need uniformity. I am not persuaded of that—I see this as a open issue. What really concerns me is that the amendment is not used as a ratchet for interfering, busybody bureaucracy where none is required.

Mr. Green: Amendments Nos. 112 and 85 deal with two separate issues—the provision of wardens and the provision of notices indicating boundaries and so forth on access land.
A consistent theme of our attempts to improve the Bill has been the need for successful management of access, in the interests of walkers particularly but also in those of owners and occupiers of land and, of course, those of the wider environment. It seems to us that the experience of parts of the country containing large amounts of access land—hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to it—suggests that an effective warden system provides one of the keys to successful land management. Amendment No. 112 aims to ensure that if such a system does not arise organically—as it were—a scheme is in place to push the access authorities into establishing it in the first few years of the availability of the access land in question.
I am sure that many hon. Members have seen the briefing from the National Farmers Union. The NFU supports the amendment, because of its—in my view—legitimate fear that there may not be enough wardens to manage the new right of access. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said that he did not wish to set up unnecessary bureaucracies. Amendment No. 112 avoids that by simply suggesting that
The access authority shall review … the adequacy of warden arrangements in respect of … access land in their area … not more than one year after that land became access land,
and at five-yearly intervals thereafter.
That is clearly no great imposition on anyone. It would cause no great increase in spending, or diversion of resources. It strikes us as a fairly small-scale practical measure to ensure that the warden arrangements operated at a suitable level. Apart from anything else, there will be differences in different areas: the same level of warden arrangements will not be necessary in every area where access has been granted.
If we are to enact realistic legislation benefiting all who wish to use land for leisure purposes or who own land, a decent and sensible warden system is vital. It will be particularly important during the early stages of the introduction of access land, if the Government succeed in their aim of extending the delights of walking in the countryside to a wider proportion of the population than have enjoyed them so far. Many relatively inexperienced walkers will then appear in the countryside. Clearly, it will continue to be critical as new generations use access land. To some extent, especially on safety matters, owners will need decent advice on how to manage access locally. I hope that the Government will welcome our low-key, low-cost but important proposal, which would ensure that wardens were provided for such areas.
Amendment No. 85 deals with the need for access authorities to erect and maintain notices indicating the boundaries of access land and excepted land under clause 19. That clause is permissive; it states that authorities may erect such notices. We want to harden the provision by replacing the word "may" with the word "shall" and introducing some caveats. I shall quote the words of the Minister for the Environment back at him. He complained that the similar amendment that we moved in Committee would have replaced the word "may" with the word "shall", but did
not state, "shall, where appropriate or expedient" …—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 May 2000; c. 444.]
I am happy to report that, just as he and his hon. Friends claim to be a listening Government, we are a listening Opposition and have included the phrase
shall, where appropriate or expedient
in amendment No. 85. We understand that the access authorities must have the power to take their own sensible decisions and that an obligation that would be the same always and everywhere throughout the country must not be imposed on them.
Having taken the Minister's advice, we tabled amendment No. 85 because we believe that, as well as wardens, decent notices are key to the practical success of the widespread increase in access land. There was consensus when we discussed that matter in Committee in that both sides accepted that a lot of information must be transmitted to those embarking on a walk in open country. It is perhaps surprising but we all agreed about that, which is why we tabled amendment No. 85.
An access authority might decide that providing decent notices is not at the top of its list of priorities in any year for 101 reasons, the most obvious of which is the availability of the necessary resources. Many access authorities will not have enough money to do so. It would be easy to cut such a budget because if the money has never been there, people are less likely to notice if it never arrives.
The Government have said throughout that they expect no extra financial imposition to be placed on landowners under the Bill, so clearly the erection of such signs and notices will fall to the access authority. As in amendment No. 112, that relatively small change that we propose would ensure that access authorities give walkers and owners what they think they require—a decent service that allows the new regime to be introduced as smoothly as possible. Therefore, the new regime of access to the countryside would be much more likely to be a long-term success. In that spirit of helpfulness and to ensure that the

Bill is introduced more successfully than would otherwise be the case, I commend amendments Nos. 112 and 85 to the House.

Mr. David Heath: Again, I thank Ministers for Government amendment No. 149, which deals with a proposal that I pressed the Government hard to adopt in Committee because I feared that the matter would not be covered. I am grateful to them for listening and tabling amendment No. 149.
Having said that, one reason that I wanted adequate signage was that my fear throughout has been that people will be ignorant of what they are expected to do under the Bill, not through any intent but simply because new arrangements will be in place. They will have read reports in the newspapers about their supposed new right, but, as we know, it is heavily qualified in the Bill. I do not want people to be treated as trespassers simply because they do not know the local information. That ties in with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on the degree of conformity of byelaws.
8.45 pm
I would be the last person in the world to argue that there should be absolute conformity—that is not sensible; the purpose of byelaws is to ensure adequate provision for local circumstances—but, having said that, unnecessary variation in the form of those byelaws is equally unhelpful. If the same difficulty is encountered in more than one place, it makes sense to have the same provision. That is why guidance from the Government is so important and why it is so important to have in the appropriate places signs that people can read. Even if 99 per cent. of people ignored a sign stating local byelaws, at least it would be there for them to read—they could not claim total ignorance. There is a lot to commend the hon. Gentleman's amendment and I shall be interested in what the Minister has to say.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) addressed the issue of wardens, which could be difficult. If access to open countryside is to work effectively, it has to be accompanied by the infrastructure that will make it work. Wardens are part of that infrastructure. It has been proven time and again in our national parks and in some areas of outstanding natural beauty that an effective wardening system is of great assistance to people who want to take advantage of access to the countryside and to the landowners and other users of the land.
Concern has been expressed on many occasions that wardening will, sadly, be a low priority for many local authorities—perhaps not because of any intent on their part, but simply because of competing budgetary pressures. Unless the situation is monitored, at best we are likely to achieve patchy provision, and probably none at all in large parts of the country. That would be detrimental to the Bill's purposes and the Government's intention. We must send a clear signal to local access authorities that they should properly consider the adequacy of the wardening and other services that they


will provide, such as supplying information and policing the Bill's operation. The amendments raise important issues and I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Mr. Simon Thomas: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 112. I am grateful to Opposition Front Benchers for tabling it as that has allowed remarks on the warden service to be made on the Floor of the House.
I concur with the remarks of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) because the warden service in local government is under extreme pressure; it certainly is in my constituency. We have an excellent warden service for the Ceredigion heritage coast, which looks after the footpaths and links up with private landowners and the National Trust to put together a good countryside service for the constituency and the county. However, the wardens are already complaining to me about the lack of statutory funding.
The Minister will know that when statutory funding is absent from legislation, discretionary local government funding is not a good defence when budget time comes along. There are already pressures on the service, which are highlighted in the summer months by the number of people who visit Ceredigion and other areas that will be opened up by the Bill. The warden service will be key to the Bill's success as wardens will provide safety advice, look after fire problems that might arise and perhaps advise landowners on man-made obstructions such as barbed wire. I am sure that a warden will tell a landowner of such an obstacle when he or she finds one, and that will encourage safe access for everyone.
The public have expectations. When "may" appears in a Bill, they take it to mean "shall". Therefore, they will expect the local authority or the access authority to provide proper funding for wardens. However, that will be extremely difficult to achieve within current funding strictures, certainly in Wales. I hope that the Government will examine how funding for a warden service may be achieved and will look at the ideas behind amendment No. 112 on the need to review the service on a regular basis so that landowners and those who wish to access land get a good-quality service from access authorities, local authorities and their warden services.

Mr. Mullin: Amendment No. 65 would require the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to publish guidance about model byelaws with the aim of achieving consistency between the byelaws made by different authorities, which seems to be an entirely admirable objective. As I have already said, we are introducing a new duty on the countryside bodies to make recommendations to access authorities on the use of their powers to make byelaws under clause 17. As my Department already advises local authorities on byelaws under existing countryside legislation, no statutory powers are needed to do that. We appreciate the good intent behind the amendment, but it is not necessary.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) asked when some of those byelaws would be used. We do not want to see byelaws everywhere and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not either. Far from it—byelaws are appropriate only in special circumstances in which a particular problem needs to be addressed with criminal sanctions. There is a safeguard, as byelaws made by access authorities must be confirmed by the Secretary of State.
On amendment No. 112 and the issue of wardens, we have provided that, in relation to access land, access authorities and district councils may appoint the number of wardens which, to them, appears to be necessary. That provision gives authorities flexibility in making appointments. As I have said before, we do not consider that wardens will be needed on all access land. Only in the so-called honeypot areas will the number of walkers possibly justify the provision of wardens. In those areas, wardens have already been appointed under other powers and we expect that access will operate quite satisfactorily on much, if not most, land without the need for wardens.
Access authorities will no doubt wish periodically to review their arrangements for wardens. That will be prudent only in assessing whether they are appointing enough wardens for the appropriate purposes and to cover the necessary areas. However, we do not agree that they should be under a statutory duty to do so, as that would be unnecessarily burdensome and would impose yet more regulation on local authorities. The Government believe in reducing regulation, not increasing it. We would encourage authorities wishing to consult others, such as local access forums, on whether the wardening arrangements are adequate. That is precisely the sort of issue which the forums should consider, and we would expect their views on it to be taken seriously by the relevant authorities.

Mr. Bennett: Is there any extra money?

Mr. Mullin: We certainly intend to provide the money that will be necessary to carry out the Bill's statutory requirements. We believe that access authorities will, in conjunction with advice from others such as the forums, provide reasonable and sufficient wardening. A duty to review would therefore be unnecessarily bureaucratic.
Likewise, amendment No. 85 would introduce unnecessary bureaucracy. It seeks to give access authorities a duty to erect and maintain notices indicating the boundaries of access land or giving information about restrictions at the request of the landowner. Clause 19 already gives authorities the power to use their discretion in deciding where notices might usefully be displayed. That provision has been designed to allow access authorities to take a sensible and balanced view of the provision of notices. The Bill also allows access authorities to contribute towards the cost of signs erected by landowners if they think fit.
If we accepted such an amendment, the duty imposed on authorities would, in any event, be difficult to enforce as it would still be dependent on the view taken by the authority. However, more fundamentally, we should not impose a new duty on access authorities. We do not want to encourage the erection of official notices in inappropriate places, including more remote and less-well-used areas. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) to withdraw his amendment, and I hope that amendments Nos. 112 and 85 will not be pressed.
In Committee we undertook further to consider byelaw-making powers and notices, and Government amendments Nos. 212, 148 and 149 address those issues. Amendment No. 212 amends section 2(6) of the Countryside Act 1968 so that the duties of the countryside bodies, which already include giving advice to authorities


about their byelaw-making powers under the National Parks and. Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the 1968 Act, extend equally to advising authorities about the use of the byelaw-making powers in clause 17.
The amendment is essentially a logical extension of the countryside bodies' duties so that they take account of the new legislation, but we shall look to them to provide sensible guidance about the special circumstances in which byelaws might be appropriate in some places. We shall also expect them to work closely with my Department to ensure that access authorities receive consistent advice about the content of byelaws.
Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 will allow access authorities to erect signs to inform the public of anything that may assist their access to the land or to inform them about the management of access. That might include suggested paths and means of access, and although the public would not be required to use them, the information would help walkers to find the most enjoyable and practical route across land that, by its nature, is often wild and difficult to navigate.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who tabled a similar amendment in Committee. I said in response to that amendment that we were keen to take the appropriate steps to promote positive management of access and to give confidence to those exercising the new right. Clearly, none of us wants our countryside to become littered with unnecessary signs, but the careful and targeted use of signs by access authorities will help walkers, particularly those who are less confident about walking in open countryside.

Mr. Bennett: In view of the Minister's undertaking,
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18

WARDENS

Amendments made: No. 145, in page "authority" insert "making the appointment".

No. 146, in page 10, line 38, after "authority" insert "appointing them".

No. 147, in page 11, line 3, leave out first "which" and insert "who".—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 19

NOTICES INDICATING BOUNDARIES, ETC

Amendments made: No. 148, in page 11, line 10, leave out "and".

No. 149, in page 11, line 12, at end insert—
'and
(iii) any other matters relating to access land or to access by virtue of section 2(1) which the access authority consider appropriate.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 20

INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER II

Amendments made: No. 150, in page 11, line 41, at beginning insert—
'(5) Subject to subsection (6), in this Chapter'.

No. 151, in page 12, line 2, at end insert—

'(6) Where—

(a) it appears to the Forestry Commissioners that any land which is dedicated for the purposes of this Part under section 16 consists wholly or predominantly of woodland, and
(b) the Forestry Commissioners give to the body who are apart from this subsection the relevant authority for the purposes of this Chapter in relation to the land a notice stating that the Forestry Commissioners are to be the relevant authority for those purposes as from a date specified in the notice,

the Forestry Commissioners shall as from that date become the relevant authority in relation to that land for those purposes, but subject to subsection (7).

(7) Where it appears to the Forestry Commissioners that any land in relation to which they are by virtue of subsection (6) the relevant authority for the purposes of this Chapter has ceased to consist wholly or predominantly of woodland, the Forestry Commissioners may, by giving notice to the body who would apart from subsection (6) be the relevant authority, revoke the notice under subsection (6) as from a date specified in the notice under this subsection.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 21

EXCLUSION OR RESTRICTION AT DISCRETION OF OWNER AND OTHERS

Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 12, line 6, at end insert—
'(1A) Under this section an entitled person may exclude or restrict access by virtue of section 2(1) to any land for no more than 40 days in any calendar year.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 10, in page 12, line 7, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment No. 12, in page 12, line 14, leave out subsection (4).
Amendment No. 31, in page 12, line 15, at end add
'(which may not include more than four Saturdays and four Sundays)'.
Amendment No. 13, in page 12, line 18, leave out from "land" to second "the" in line 19.
Amendment No. 14, in page 12, line 20, leave out "may".
Amendment No. 15, in page 12, line 22, leave out "twenty-eight" and insert "40".
Amendment No. 16, in page 12 line 23, leave out "not" and insert "only".
Amendment No. 17, in page 12, line 24, at end insert—
'days from Monday to Saturday but excluding—'.
Amendment No. 18, in page 12, line 25, leave out paragraph (a).
Amendment No. 98, in clause 22, page 13, line 13, at end insert—
'( ) In this section "land management" and "management of the land" means—

(a) any activity associated with agriculture or forestry;
(b) any activity to improve or maintain habitat for wildlife and biodiversity;


(c) any activity to maintain, improve or use sporting opportunities on the land;
(d) pest control; or
(e) any other activity undertaken by or on behalf of the owner in furtherance of earning an income from the land.'.

Government amendments Nos. 152, 153, 166, 167, 186 and 188.

Mr. Paice: This is a large group, and the amendments in my name and those of my colleagues address closely related issues that go to the heart of the Bill. Amendment No. 11 seeks to change from 28 to 40 the number of days on which landowners or others with an interest can close off land without having to give reasons or make an application. Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 are designed to deal with weekends and bank holidays, and I shall return to those issues. Amendment No. 98 seeks to create a definition for the term "land management", following discussions in Committee.
9 pm
I remind the Minister of the Government's policy towards land use, and agriculture in particular. The action plan for farming was published by no less a body than No. 10 Downing street, following the so-called agricultural summit on 30 March. Let me quote:
We all want agriculture to be prosperous, forward-looking and sustainable. It must be competitive, and flexible enough to respond quickly and effectively to market changes and consumer needs. The entrepreneurial family farm will continue to thrive—but it will often be supported by adding value to farm products or income from non-farming activity. In many more areas farmers will look to turn a positive approach to the environment to their own economic advantage.
The Minister may be pleased to know that that entirely concurs with our stance on the matter, but what is important is that it demonstrates that even the Government understand that landowners and farmers must now look beyond traditional agriculture to generate an income and use the environment to their agricultural advantage.
Let us look at the types of activities that may take place on open country, virtually all of which is being farmed or used for one purpose or another. There are many. Perhaps the commonest agricultural activity is sheep farming. Lambing takes place on a hill or on lower land, but it may be on land that is classified as open country. The period involved can be six weeks or so, which is 42 days a year. There is the requirement to gather sheep for dipping, testing, shearing and various other things. Gathering sheep can be a day-long activity on a hill. Often, farmers band together to help each other. They can be at it several days on the trot, gathering each other's flocks in. It can take several days of the year.
The last thing that anyone wants when attempting to gather stock is someone appearing over the brow of a hill just when they think they have the stock—the sheep—all together and going in the right direction; the animals will promptly turn tail and flee the other way. It is not a matter of there being any danger to anyone. Problems and difficulties may arise for the person who is seeking to earn a living from the land.
The intention of the amendments is to extend the 28 days to 40. As well as conventional farming, there is, as we discussed in Committee, use of the land for shooting

of all sorts of game birds and deer, for deer stalking and deer culling. There is a whole range of activities that cannot be done within 28 days.

Mr. Simon Thomas: I sense that the hon. Gentleman is moving away from sheep farming. Before he leaves the subject of sheep completely, will he reflect on the needs of markets; on the way in which farmers have been encouraged to diversify and to sell their produce differently; and on the way in which the lambing season has changed from a very short period in the early spring to one that is spread out over several weeks? The 28 days does not suit the modern way in which lambing is done in hill farms.

Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. As his colleague, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), knows, I had some knowledge of that area—I still do, I hasten to say. It is where I first met the right hon. Gentleman a long while ago. I am aware of how sheep farming has changed over the years; I was a sheep farmer myself, albeit on different terrain. The situation with regard to lambing periods is as the hon. Gentleman has said. The amendment will be crucial if farmers are to respond, as the Government say they should, to changing customer needs and market requirements.

Mr. Bennett: On that point, can the hon. Gentleman explain why someone should be restricted from access during a lambing period? In what way does the individual walker—as opposed to someone with a dog—interfere, or make it difficult for lambing to take place?

Mr. Paice: Obviously an individual walker does not make it difficult for lambing to occur. As the hon. Gentleman knows, lambing is a natural event that cannot be stopped once it has started—no one has found a way of stopping it yet. However, if people disturb sheep at lambing time, it can cause serious problems of mis-mothering, where ewes leave lambs which have just been dropped and which may still be covered in placenta waiting for their mothers to lick them clean. Ewes can be very easily frightened away and may not return in time to assist their lambs before they suffocate in their cowl.
Any sheep farmer could tell the hon. Gentleman of a raft of problems that could be caused by unnecessary disturbance at lambing time, and those problems can occur regardless of whether ewes are lambing on an open hill or in a shed. Shepherding skills are crucial at that time, when the last thing farmers need is someone creating a disturbance.
We also have to consider land management issues, and I shall address them in detail in a moment. My point for the moment is that various land management activities occur in open country and are not compatible with open access. I contend that those events require much longer than 28 days, which is why we propose providing for 40 days.
In Committee, the Minister told us that he believed that 28 days was sufficient because of a subsequent clause on land management, which would cover a vast range of activities. Accordingly, we have tabled amendment No. 98, to which I shall return in a moment. The point, however, is that we have to ensure that the Bill is clear.


In Committee, the Minister said:
Nothing that we propose to do to limit the days when landowners can automatically close their land will affect their right to apply to the countryside bodies or national park authorities for further closures on any day of the year, where they have legitimate reasons for doing so, for example for land management.
He used land management as an example, but clause 22 deals only with land management.
The Minister went on to say:
It is not the case that the Bill would prevent shooting on Saturdays.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 May 2000; c. 476.]
The statement implies—and the Minister went on to clarify that it means—that clause 22 includes shooting as part of land management. Although it is perhaps understandable to say that land management includes sheep farming, I, and other Committee members, were surprised to hear the Minister say that it included shooting.
The major problem in preventing people from closing off land at weekends is that it removes from those who have an interest in the land a major opportunity to use it for personal, social or, more important, commercial purposes. I come back to the quotation from the action plan for farming that I gave at the beginning of my speech. If landowners are to increase their non-farming income, they will have to find ways of generating an income.
Hills, for example, can be used for paragliding, hang-gliding and similar activities. Although those activities may be dangerous, landowners can charge people to use their land not only to participate in those activities, but to be spectators of them. The Bill, however, would prevent landowners from closing off that land at weekends, which is the prime time for such activities. The Government are therefore preventing landowners from gaining that income.
In Committee, the Minister told us on countless occasions that he did not believe that the Bill increased the costs to landowners. The Bill may not add directly to landowners' costs, but the effect will be the same if it dramatically reduces their chance of earning an income from the land. That is why the amendments are crucial.
I turn to the issue of closing land on Saturdays and Sundays. Amendment No. 16 would create the opportunity of closing on either Saturday or Sunday, although not necessarily both. Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are designed to allow Saturdays not to be closed. So the Minister has a choice—in Committee we used the term "a menu of choice". It is important that landowners should be allowed to use their land at weekends if that is the most appropriate time for shooting, hang-gliding or parascending—or, indeed, for the lambing to which I referred earlier.
As was said in Committee and does not need repeating in the House, sheep do not know when it is Saturday, Sunday or a bank holiday and they will not stop lambing. The Bill should not prevent landowners who have a justifiable reason for closing their land from doing so on a Saturday or a Sunday—particularly on Saturday, which is a key day for people to pay for leisure activities that are part of the diversification of land use that the Government wish to encourage.

Mr. Gray: Is there not a curious perversity here, in that the best days for a syndicated shoot on some lands are

Saturdays and bank holidays? Those are the days to get people out of London and the cities on to the moors to do a bit of syndicated shooting, which is where the big money is. That big money keeps the moors going. The curious perversity is that under the Bill those are the very days on which people cannot close off their land.

Mr. Paice: It is not simply a matter of shooting, although my hon. Friend is entirely right that people will pay a premium for an opportunity to shoot on Saturdays that they will not pay during the week, when there is slightly less demand. The features of the landscape that generate the best shooting—particularly grouse shooting—are the very features that walkers want to see. A good crop of heather with plenty of heather cover across the moor and a clean environment with a healthy wildlife stock is good for grouse, but it is also exactly what people want to see. They do not want to walk through bracken-covered hills with old rank heather that has long passed its most useful date and is no longer of any value to wildlife. That means that heather has to be burned on a regular cycle to cause it to regenerate. That is a critical part of heather moor management—but is burning heather on a large scale commensurate with free access? I suggest that it is not.
The 28-day limit and matters relating to closure at weekends and bank holidays bring us to the issue of land management. Amendment No. 98 seeks to create a definition of land management and builds on what the Minister said in Committee. I have already quoted his remarks which appeared to mean that shooting was included under the heading of land management. When we sought to define land management in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions said at column 480:
The proposed definition is, in some respects, rather narrow … the amendment might cast doubts on the possibility of closures for, for example, motor racing, war games, training racehorses or waste processing activities—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 May 2000; c. 480.]
Those words imply that the Government fully understand that there is a need to allow landowners to seek to generate an income from that sort of activity, and that having the land open at that time poses a risk to the public.
9.15 pm
We have concentrated on the question of sheep farming, as it represents by far the biggest land use. However, many farmers also keep cattle on their hills, and that poses serious public safety issues. I said in Committee that some breeds of hill cattle can be exceedingly fierce at calving time. They will defend their calves viciously from anyone then, and it is no exaggeration to say that tragedies could happen if people appeared suddenly close to a cow with a calf.
In amendment No. 98, we have tried to define what we mean by land management. This time, I hope that our definition cannot be described as too narrow, but it is not intended to provide opportunities for unscrupulous landowners to close off their land—a matter that worried the Minister in Committee. Under clause 22, landowners can only apply to the Countryside Agency for approval to close off their land. A spurious application would be treated with disdain and rejected, but the amendment's definitions of land management—which take into account the comments made by Ministers in Committee—would provide the basis for serious applications.
I turn now to the criteria that we have used. I think that all hon. Members would agree that agriculture and forestry count as land management, but we argue that the maintenance and improvement of the wildlife habitat also count as land management. I have spoken about grouse, but the same criteria apply to countless forms of open-country wildlife, such as ground-nesting birds, or waders, or other species.
The amendment speaks of
any activity to maintain, improve or use sporting opportunities on the land.
That links with pest control. Most Labour Members clearly want to ban fox hunting. If they succeed, the Burns report makes it clear that the only alternative way to control foxes will be by lamping. Shooting foxes at night would be highly dangerous to anyone in the vicinity.

Mr. Gray: At present, most lamping is undertaken with a shotgun. An interesting element of the Burns report which has not yet been highlighted is that it points out that a ban on hunting would mean that lamping would be carried out with high-velocity rifles. Does my hon. Friend agree that using such a weapon to shoot foxes in the pitch dark would be extremely dangerous?

Mr. Paice: I do not know anyone who goes lamping with a shotgun. I use a rifle, as does everyone else I know. However, one uses any gun only where it is safe to do so. Burns states that the use of high-powered rifles would not be acceptable in many parts of the country—especially if open access means that those with the guns do not know where other people may be. A fox may be visible in the spotlight 100 yards away, but the shooter may not be able to see a person walking only a few yards away. That is clearly a serious public safety issue.

Mr. Swayne: Does my hon. Friend imagine that hunt saboteurs will put up their feet once this measure goes through? The reality is that they will be present to disrupt those proceedings.

Mr. Paice: That may well be the case. I genuinely do not want to digress into a debate about hunting or what may take its place. However, pest control is an important part of overall land management, particularly with regard to the agricultural and sporting use of the land.
Finally, amendment No. 98 would provide the opportunity for landowners for close the land, or seek to close it, in furtherance of generating the income that, as I have described, is in line with Government policy.
I feel sure that some right hon. and hon. Members, perhaps even the Minister, will suggest that we are simply trying to look after landlords and reduce the opportunities for people to use the countryside. That is not the case. We have looked at the debates in Committee and heeded what the Minister said. Indeed, some of our earlier proposals were for a much longer period than 40 days. We believe, however, that 40 days is a reasonable compromise—a reasonable balance, as the Minister said in relation to his choice of 28 days. We believe that the amount of time in which people will want to shoot grouse, gather sheep, burn heather or shoot foxes on their land cannot be

contained within a 28-day period or restricted to Mondays to Fridays excluding bank holidays. Occasional weekend days also need to be included.
If the Minister's response to the issues of weekends and the 28-day period is that our proposals are not necessary because clause 22 provides the opportunity for landowners to apply to close off their land at any stage or for any period, it is critical that the definition of land management, to which clause 22 specifically refers, is broad enough to ensure that it covers all the eventualities that I have described. I hope that the Government will accept that the amendments have been tabled in a genuine and constructive vein, in an attempt to improve the Bill and its ability to meet the needs of land managers, without seriously damaging the opportunity for people to use the right that they will acquire under the Bill.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) seems to be making a great deal of unnecessary fuss about this. I find it amazing that he believes that access should be restricted during the lambing season. I spent many of my early years on a Welsh hill farm and I never saw a Welsh hill farmer who felt that at lambing time he had to put sheep into a particular field that did not have a footpath running through it, as opposed to putting them into one with a footpath.

Mr. Paice: There is a wealth of difference between a footpath and open access. The hon. Gentleman seems to fail to understand this point, which the Government kept repeating in Committee. When there is a footpath across land, access is manageable and farmers can, if they wish, keep their sheep away. Indeed, the sheep will probably keep themselves away. If there is open access there is no control, and no management of where people may come from or walk to, or of what disturbance they may create.

Mr. Bennett: I just do not think that the hon. Gentleman lives in the real world. I have looked at lambing on footpaths, and very often the lamb is actually dropped on the footpath. The people walking across the footpath use their common sense—they walk round, they divert from the footpath. That is exactly what will happen if there is access. I think that the hon. Gentleman is making a great deal of unnecessary fuss about lambing. My plea is for there to be as few restrictions as possible to make the system work. I am sure that he accepts that farmers will not want to spend a great deal of time putting up notices telling people that access is restricted.
People who go walking pick out routes which make a circle—to get back to their cars—or between two public transport points. They will set out with the intention of making that walk. If they suddenly find, for what they perceive to be no good reason, that there is a restriction on their access, they will not be pleased. I will not dilate on how they will respond.
The problem is that the more we restrict the routes that people can take, the less willing people will be to make the legislation work. They must be convinced that there is good reason for restricting access. I would suggest that with an increase from 28 to 40 days, the temptation for landowners to make land unavailable to walkers for the maximum rather than the minimum time will be considerable.
It is important that we impress upon people in the countryside that walkers are responsible people who will not want to cause problems. They will want to move out of the way if sheep are being collected off the hillside. They will want to take into account whether lambing is occurring in the areas that they are going into. They will have enough common sense to keep well away if there are cattle on the hillsides dropping calves.
We must develop the Bill in a spirit of co-operation and not by saying that there will be longer restrictions so that people suddenly find that, having set out to walk a particular circular route, they have to walk a considerable extra distance to avoid going on to a piece of land where there is a restriction.
I plead with the Opposition not to press this matter, which would bring the Bill into disrepute, as land access would be prevented for all sorts of trivial reasons rather than for the very small number of serious reasons when access needs to be restricted.

Mr. David Heath: The great problem with discussing this important group of amendments is the risk of going into hyperbole, with one side saying that all walkers are likely to cause difficulties for farmers or landowners while the other takes the view that all landowners will be seeking to thwart the legislation by whatever means they can. That is not true of the great majority of landowners, farmers, walkers and ramblers.
The difficulty is the practical application of the Bill. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is, to a large extent, right, but his argument would be for no closures at all. He argues that there is no difference, in effect, between a 28-day closure and a 40-day closure to the individual who finds that land is closed. There is no logical reason for the hon. Gentleman to argue for one or the other if his view is that which he has expressed—other than a wish to restrict closures as far as possible. That is a perfectly reasonable position to take.
There are farming and other practices that farmers, owners and others feel would be better without disturbance. The classic case is lambing, and I agree with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) about the need to protect lambing as far as possible on these upland areas. I cannot understand the argument that lambing can somehow take place on a Monday-to-Friday basis; it does not make sense.
The Government have taken that view because they do not want closures every weekend as a result of the discretionary closures that landowners can impose. The Government do not want the 28 days, 40 days or whatever to lead to a succession of weekends of being closed to all-comers. I understand that. It would be an abuse of discretionary closure and would he contrary to the purposes of the Bill.

Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman is right. No one would want the land to be closed off for 28 or 40 Saturdays or Sundays. However, does he agree that no one is likely to do that, because people would not want to carry out the activities I mentioned only on Saturdays? They might do so on some Saturdays, but it is extremely unlikely that they would use Saturdays to the exclusion of all the other days of the week.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right; it is extremely unlikely indeed—unless someone was

deliberately trying to circumvent the provisions. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and I tabled amendment No. 31. That would allow closure on four Saturdays and four Sundays in the year, but would ensure that not all the days were weekends. It would allow normal farming practices to take place.
In Committee, the Minister for the Environment made two arguments. He dealt with partial closure and made the important point that it is open to landowners to define for themselves the parts of their land that should be closed and on which days. That would make the process easier for farmers, but does it make it easier for the walker? It would make life immeasurably more difficult for the walker than if a longer period of complete closure was specified. If walkers find that a different piece of land, defined by the landowner, is closed each time they want to walk—perhaps on consecutive days—does that not lay the system open to all the abuses that worry the Minister?
If I were a landowner who wanted to be difficult, I should close ribbons of land across my estate for consecutive 28-day periods. That would thus give complete closure to access; it is a worrying lacuna in the proposals. A complete closure for a longer period would be better both for the farmer and for the landowner.
The other argument put by the Minister related to clause 22—closure for land management—to which the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire also referred. There are two problems with that provision. The first is that it requires anticipation of the event. The restriction is not immediate; it must be applied for—we do not yet know by what mechanism or what delays might occur. However, it would certainly not be much help if lambing went on longer than the farmer anticipated. If a field was still in use on a Friday night, the farmer could not rush down to his friendly local access authority to ask for a clause 22 closure.
The second problem relates to the point that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire touched on: the definition of land management. Under clause 22, what does that comprise? At present, it is clear that the definition would have to be stretched beyond what is reasonable in order to encompass some of the activities that a landowner or farmer might properly want to undertake on their land.
In Committee, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) asked how a rock concert could be organised so that it took place on a Saturday or a Sunday. Motor sport meetings were mentioned. They too would involve closure—usually at weekends. How would they be dealt with? Such events are not land management as defined under clause 22. They cannot take place within discretionary closure periods because of the weekend exemptions. That is a real difficulty.
This aspect of the Bill will cause problems. The Government have not thought it through; they have not related their good intentions to agricultural practice or to the practical effects on people trying to work the land. They should reconsider the matter.
My final point is about Government amendment No. 152. Again, it is a matter that I raised in Committee and, again, the Government have responded positively by tabling an amendment. The insertion of the words


"a specified person" will improve the Bill. I commend the Government for listening to the few words that I said in Committee on this point.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. I am not sure whether I should declare an interest, but my local newspaper described me as a landowner because I have six modest acres of land adjacent to my house. It will not be affected by the Bill, so perhaps a declaration of interest is not necessary.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) mentioned the forays that he had undertaken to my part of the world. I represent a rural constituency where many of the issues that we are debating are important. There are 93 villages in my constituency and I know that he has diligently rambled around them. Perhaps he has even hunted for votes in them. I am sorry that he was not more successful, but I am sure that he enjoyed the experience of visiting my constituency.
The farming fraternity, particularly upland farmers and the sheep farmers in Snowdonia, are concerned about many aspects of the Bill and the issues raised by the amendments. I stress their concerns in supporting the amendment even though I warmly welcome many aspects of the Bill. They will be worth having on the statute book. That is why it is important to strike the right balance.
The amendment raises the question of whether we have achieved the right balance. My hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) is on parliamentary duties, and he is sorry that he cannot be here tonight. However, I have read the debate in which he took part in Committee. When the Minister for the Environment responded, he said that he accepted that the period of 28 days was a matter of judgment.
Lambing causes a problem for the Government's proposal. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) spoke about people who stick to the footpaths, and if there were linear access, that problem might be much less serious. Although such access was debated in Committee, we are not returning to the point now.
I love walking in the hills and I can identify with the people who do that. I am concerned not about 99 per cent. of ramblers, but about the 1 per cent. of them who can create mayhem. I receive representations from hill farmers and sheep farmers about the nuisance that they have suffered and we have to take their concerns on board if we are to reach a settlement that will stick.
The period of 28 days is too short. A period of 40 days is a modest extension, and it is nothing like the suggestion of 90 days that was made in Committee. To build in flexibility, it might have been an idea to stipulate the number of days by order. With experience, the period could have been varied without the need for primary legislation. That might have allowed us in the National Assembly in Cardiff to vary the period in line with circumstances in Wales.
Lambing now takes place over an extended period because of the marketing patterns that have developed to respond to the difficult times faced by hill farmers. I press the Minister to follow the logic of his comments when he condemned the suggestion of 90 or 180 days that was

made in Committee. He said that we should debate a more modest period, and 40 days is precisely that. The Government could accept that proposal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy made another important point in Committee. He talked about the effect that the clause could have on highlands and on certain birds that nest and produce their young in such areas. He referred to birds such as the curlew, the stone curlew, the golden plover and others which would be vulnerable for more than the period of 28 days if no protection were provided. That aspect of the problem is another argument in favour of extending the period to 40 days, as suggested in the amendment.
Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government will take on board the modest nature of the amendment and will respond positively to it. I am glad to support it.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I endorse all that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said from the Front Bench, and stress that as a practical farmer myself, I believe that he has genuinely tried to improve the Bill in a constructive way. My hon. Friend's comments, like those that I shall make, were based on practical experience. I have some knowledge of the ways of sheep, and I know how extraordinarily frustrating they can be.
I can confirm that my hon. Friend's reply to the intervention by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was right. In his own remarks, the hon. Gentleman told the House that he had been brought up on a farm. That is untypical. It makes the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend and me untypical of the majority of people who go walking in the countryside. The majority of walkers were not privileged to have been brought up on a farm and are, therefore, not nearly as conversant with the ways of animals and how they will react under certain circumstances—not least how they will react when disturbed by human beings who happen to walk through their territory.
My hon. Friend instanced the problems of mustering on a hillside, when just one person appearing in the wrong place will have the effect of scattering the flock over a wide area, causing the shepherd enormous loss of time, great frustration and additional hard work under extremely trying circumstances.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. In response to the comments of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich a moment ago—[Interruption.] I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon—the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). There is a curious explanation for my error, but I shall not go into that. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
The definitive briefing on the matter must be from the National Farmers Union, which states:
It is absolutely imperative that ewes and lambs are not disturbed during the period of lambing.

Mr. Gill: The House must take notice of the NFU and people with practical experience. I respect the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish as a man with a great deal of experience of walking in the countryside, but he is not typical. He has had the experience of having been brought up on a farm, which gives him an understanding of the ways of animals that the majority of walkers do not have.
As the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, whereas 99 per cent. of walkers will behave very well indeed, and will have some consideration for the countryside and the animals there, from time to time there will be someone who is capable of causing mayhem.
Generally speaking, landowners and farmers are tolerant people who will welcome and encourage recreational walkers, but it is the 1 per cent. of walkers who step out of line who not only spoil the experience for other walkers, but make the farmer's or landowner's job so difficult.

Mr. Edward Garnier: It is my experience in Leicestershire that expectant sheep, expectant cattle and expectant birds cannot count or tell the days of the week. I wondered whether the animals in my hon. Friend's part of the country, or in any other part, were cleverer than the sheep and other animals in my part of the country. Is my hon. Friend convinced that the number of days that the Government intend to prescribe will have any bearing on the way in which animals behave as they come near to delivering their young?

Mr. Gill: I am tempted to tell my hon. and learned Friend about the local agricultural journalist in our area, whose gag is to tell the readers not to put the tup into the sheep at night, so that the farmer does not have to be up at nights lambing.
The short answer to my hon. and learned Friend's question is no, of course the animals do not know what day of the week it is or whether it is the weekend.
The exclusion of weekends from the possibility of the farmer being able to close off his land is entirely impracticable. I do not understand why anyone should consider that, during lambing, the exclusion of the weekend is acceptable. In any event, the amendment proposing that the 28-day period should be extended to 40 seems eminently sensible. Even though it is possible these days, with the development of modern techniques, to condense the lambing period, it is still unreasonable to expect farmers in the hills to compress their lambing within the 40 days that is now being proposed.
9.45 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire was right to point out the perversity of the provisions in circumstances where farmers and landowners need to generate additional income. They have been exhorted by the Government to do just that by diversifying and finding other ways of producing an income so that they are not entirely dependent on agriculture, which we know is going through a difficult time. An unreasonable restriction is being imposed, and the period should be extended.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) talked about the problems of definition. That is inevitable. Once a decision is taken to legislate in any area, there will be problems of definition. Problems are occasioned by the difficulty of protecting everybody's interests following the decision to legislate in a particularly difficult area. However, that decision having been made, we must ensure that as far as possible—this is the purpose of the amendments—the Bill's provisions strike a fair balance between the interests of all the parties, and that is not easily done. It is certainly not easily achieved if hon.

Members who take part in the debate fail to appreciate—or do not want to do so—the practical difficulties that are faced by those who depend on the land for their living.
With these brief remarks, I hope that the Government will accept the amendment and increase the number of days from 28 to 40, and accept also the amendment dealing with the definition of land.

Dr. David Clark: I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister not to accept the advice that he has received from the Opposition Benches, which is unfounded and does not fit the balance correctly. I am bemused by some of the comments of Opposition Members.
I speak as someone who was brought up in the Cumbrian hills. I started my working life on the land in the Cumbrian fells. I suspect that I know as much about that part of England as anyone in the Chamber. I find the discussion about a new situation that is suddenly before us bemusing. We are talking about people having a right of access to upland, farmland and elsewhere, as if that were something new that would cause many unforeseen difficulties. That is not the case.
In Cumbria, because of the Law of Property Act 1925, the vast majority of commons, because they were under old urban districts—anyone who knows Cumbria will understand that they are very rural—have provided access on foot for everyone to exercise. In addition, the rest of the commons are virtually owned by the National Trust, and there is complete and free access. I can think of only one serious mountain top in Cumbria where there is not supposedly free access.
We are not staring into the unknown. We know what the position is and farmers know what the position is. The Cumbrian farmers have learned to live with it and they compete favourably with upland farmers elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I concede that it is a matter of balance, but the Government have got that balance about right with 28 days.
Lambing has been debated at great length tonight, but the lambing season in the upland areas is not long. Early lambing is done inside. The climate is such that there cannot be an extended lambing season in the upland areas. Of course, the provision could cause the odd difficulty—that is inevitable in life—but, with good farming practice, such problems can be accommodated.
Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister not to change his viewpoint. For the past almost 75 years, we have seen how, in one large tract of upland area, we have managed to live with access, which is perhaps far greater than in most parts of the country, while still managing to sustain a viable farming industry.

Mr. Swayne: Recently, I attended a farm open day on a Sunday in my constituency. That open day involved charging for access to the land. It was not a commercial operation, but a public relations operation on behalf of farming. Nevertheless, the charge for access to the farm was £2.50 per adult, with children being allowed access free. There was a farmers' market and an extensive farm tour on trailers attached to tractors which took more than an hour. I would estimate that some 2,000 people took the farm tour that day.
Undoubtedly, not all the land that was available that day would have been subject to the right of access, but I estimate that about half of it would have been. That was not a commercial undertaking, but given my estimate of 2,000 people attending, there appears to be a commercial demand for such an activity, particularly at weekends. Would such an activity fall within the definition of land management in amendment No.98, and is that an appropriate way to encourage farmers to augment their income in these difficult times?
I have no doubt that, if so, that is precisely the sort of activity for which the amendments should cater by providing for a period of more than 28 days and access at weekends. It would be impossible to have arranged such an undertaking, charging people for access to land and laying on the farmers' market and the tour, while that land was openly available to anyone under the right of access. It would have had to have been closed for such an undertaking to have remained a success.

Mr. Meacher: Clause 24 allows the relevant authorities to make direction to exclude or restrict public access in the interests of nature conservation of heritage preservation.
In Committee, we recognised the merit of an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), which would allow any person to be appointed for the purpose of determining the precise period of the closure or restriction. It would allow, for example, a wildlife trust with a short lease of the land to determine the period of closure in order to protect rare plants while they are in flower. Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 give effect to our undertaking in Committee, and I therefore commend them to the House.
Clause 30 enables the Secretary of State or, in Wales, the National Assembly, to make regulations relating to the exclusion or restriction of access under chapter II. Amendment No. 166 allows for regulations to prescribe the form of a notice or application under certain provisions of chapter II.
The use of forms may assist landowners by ensuring that they are aware of all the information that is required from them when making an application or posting a notification, and will ensure that the relevant authorities receive all the information that they require in order to undertake their responsibilities.
Government amendment No. 167, with consequential amendments Nos. 186 and 188, would enable the Secretary of State or the National Assembly to make regulations restricting applications from commoners under clause 22, which deals with land management, or clause 23, which covers avoidance of risk of fire or danger to the public. It responds to an undertaking which my hon. Friend the Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) in Committee.
I acknowledge the anxieties that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and the Countryside Agency raised about the difficulties that could arise if many people with

rights of common access over an area of open country chose to seek separate directions under chapter II. Government amendment No. 167 would ensure that powers would be available to the Secretary of State and the National Assembly to regulate such applications, for example, to specify that applications should be made jointly.
I shall now deal with the Opposition amendments, especially amendment No. 11. Clause 2l gives landowners and others who have an interest in the land an absolute entitlement to exclude or restrict access as they think fit, for any reason, for up to 28 days each year. While that inevitably places constraints on when the new right of access can be exercised, it is reasonable to allow those with an interest in the land the flexibility to close land, or otherwise restrict access without needing to seek anyone's permission. I believe that hon. Members from all parties share that view. Again, it reflects our wish to apply a light touch to the statutory framework and keep burdens on landowners to a minimum.
I shall tackle the more controversial issue of the length of time. Determining the figure of 28 days has inevitably been a matter of judgment. There is nothing sacrosanct about it. We have been guided, not by the fact that the figure is used in other legislation, but, as I said earlier, by our judgment about the occasions when landowners and others might need to exclude the public. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who made an effective and passionate speech. However, in all honesty, it is difficult to envisage many such occasions, especially those that take us beyond 28 days.
It is hard to imagine how people walking across uncultivated land, away from buildings, would generally interfere with others who were using the land. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made that point effectively. Shooting is perhaps one of the few examples. There has already been much discussion about that in Committee and elsewhere.
Our understanding is that grouse moors, even large ones, are highly unlikely to sustain shooting for 28 days. Moreover, the Bill allows closure or restriction of up to 28 days of any parcel of land. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) also made that point. It should not be overlooked—the hon. Gentleman did not overlook it—as it gives those managing the land far greater flexibility than if closures applied to all the landholdings. For example, those involved in grouse management will be able to close or restrict access to different parts of their land for up to 28 days, assuming that they believe that restrictions are necessary. The total number of days on which closures or restrictions are in operation on different parts of a large estate could therefore considerably exceed 28 days.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome presented an ingenious argument in terms of ribbons, if I can so describe it, against my proposal in Committee on the abuse of closures. I accept that the discretion to close different parcels of land could be abused, for example, by closing concentric circles on different days.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

As amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Meacher: As I was saying, such closures would quickly fall into disrepute and would be almost impossible to enforce or signpost. I do not think that abuses are likely to be frequent, or effective in reducing access.
If we have erred at all, I think that we have erred in favouring the landowner rather than the public. The Government believe that a power to exclude or restrict access for up to 28 days in any year as of right is more than adequate, and that an increase is not justified.
As for the question of whether landowners should be allowed as of right to close their land at weekends as part of their 28-day entitlement, I accept that a very balanced judgment is involved. I listened carefully to what was said, and I think all hon. Members agree that we must balance the needs of those who manage the land with our aim to give millions of people more and better access to the open countryside. It is obvious that weekends will be popular with walkers, and I have heard the arguments suggesting that they are also necessary for farmers. The Government would therefore be wary of any proposals that could be used to frustrate the genuine intentions of the legislation.
I accept that amendments Nos. 16 to 18 do not seek to add Sundays or bank holidays to the discretionary closure arrangements. I also accept that they reflect genuine concerns about potential conflicts between access and shooting. We have thought carefully about the case for including Saturdays as part of the discretionary entitlement, but we are not persuaded of that case. If we accepted the amendments, land could be closed every Saturday throughout spring and summer. That may not be the intention, but it could happen. I am more attracted to a more modest amendment—No. 31, tabled by Liberal Democrats in Committee. Giving those entitled to discretionary closures the right to exclude or restrict access for up to four Saturdays or four Sundays is, I think, a much more reasonable proposition.
Finally, let me deal with the whole question of land management, and the various comments about our attitude to it. In fact, our attitude involves giving land management a pretty wide meaning. We do not consider it sensible to provide an exhaustive list of definitions. Such a list would certainly include agricultural and forestry activities as well as shooting—I am happy to place that on record—but defining land management in the way proposed by amendment No. 98 risks excluding activities that should fall within the scope of the Bill.
I may be asked for an example. This was hinted at by others. Amendment No. 98 would not allow for a non-profit-making activity, such as a pop festival, to take place on the land. However, I should add that we do not intend "land management" to embrace nature conservation, which is dealt with by directions made under clause 24.
Clause 21(7) already allows regulations to be made to vary the days on which access can be excluded or restricted. That means that if, in the light of experience, it becomes clear that there is a case for including some Saturdays in the discretionary entitlement, the Secretary of State will have the power to amend the days as necessary.
I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. I assure the House that we shall continue to listen carefully to views expressed about discretionary closures. I recognise that a difficult judgment has to be made, and we are still trying to get the balance right, but for the reasons that I have given, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Paice: I appreciate the Minister's comments on land management and want to put on record the fact that he includes shooting under that heading, but I am much less persuaded about 28-day or 40-day closures and weekends. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) sought to pour scorn on my comments about farming and especially lambing, which were supported not only by Conservative Members, but by other Opposition Members. The right hon. Gentleman said that farmers know that there is no problem, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said, I would far rather heed the views of the National Farmers Union, which specifically said:
We believe that the 28 days specified in the Bill is far too short a time period. Often lambing can take place over a six-week period and it is imperative that ewes and lambs are not disturbed during this time.
I believe that the NFU's voice fairly reflects the concerns of sheep farmers throughout the country, which is why we believe that 40 days is right.
The Minister said that grouse moors are unlikely to have to sustain shooting for 28 days. He is right, but shooting is only part of managing those moors. Shooting may constitute a large part of it, but 28 days is inadequate when the other activities are included. The Minister also said that, if the partial closure method were used on a large estate, parts of the moor could be closed for more than 28 days, but I stress that not all the land that we are considering is part of large estates. Some of the land in Snowdonia, to which the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) referred, may be owned by large estates, but it is certainly not farmed as such; it is farmed by small operations, for which partial closure would not be an option.
The Minister said that moors could be closed all spring and summer if amendment No. 31, on Saturdays and Sundays, were adopted. I have to tell him that people do not shoot in the spring and the summer. Therefore, his argument is wrong if closure for shooting purposes is right.
I want to take this opportunity to say that I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon is retiring at the next election. I was sorry that he won 20 years ago, but I shall be sorry to see him go.
We in the Conservative party are the first to recognise that the vast majority of walkers are responsible people who will take heed of the problems that they could cause. Equally, we are the first to recognise that the odd landlord or landowner will want to use whatever opportunity he


has to thwart the Bill. There are rogues in every group in society—that is a fact of life. The amendment is intended to balance the rights and opportunities of landowners and land users, who will be given rights under the Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 294.

Division No. 230]
[10.9 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Greenway, John


Allan, Richard
Grieve, Dominic


Amess, David
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Hammond, Philip


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Harvey, Nick


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hawkins, Nick


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Hayes, John


Baker, Norman
Heald, Oliver


Baldry, Tony
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Ballard, Jackie
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Bercow, John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Blunt, Crispin
Hunter, Andrew


Body, Sir Richard
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Boswell, Tim
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Jenkin, Bernard


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Key, Robert


Brady, Graham
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Brake, Tom
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Brand, Dr Peter
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Breed, Colin
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lansley, Andrew


Browning, Mrs Angela
Leigh, Edward


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Letwin, Oliver


Burnett, John
Lidington, David


Burns, Simon
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Burstow, Paul
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Loughton, Tim



Luff, Peter


Cash, William
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John



McIntosh, Miss Anne


Chidgey, David
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Clappison, James
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Madel, Sir David



Maginnis, Ken


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Maples, John


Collins, Tim
Mates, Michael


Cran, James
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Moore, Michael


Duncan Smith, Iain
Moss, Malcolm


Evans, Nigel
Nicholls, Patrick


Faber, David
Norman, Archie


Fabricant, Michael
Öpik, Lembit


Flight, Howard
Ottaway, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Page, Richard


Foster, Don (Bath)
Paice, James


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Paterson, Owen


Fox, Dr Liam
Pickles, Eric


Fraser, Christopher
Prior, David


Garnier, Edward
Randall, John


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gibb, Nick
Rendel, David


Gidley, Sandra
Robathan, Andrew


Gill, Christopher
Robertson, Laurence


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Ruffley, David


Gray, James
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Green, Damian
St Aubyn, Nick





Sanders, Adrian
Tredinnick, David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Trend, Michael


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Tyrie, Andrew


Soames, Nicholas
Walter, Robert


Spicer, Sir Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Webb, Steve


Steen, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Streeter, Gary
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Stunell, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Swayne, Desmond
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Syms, Robert
Willis, Phil


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Sir Teddy



Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Peter Atkinson and Mr. Stephen Day.


Tonge, Dr Jenny



Townend, John





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clelland, David


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Coaker, Vernon


Ainger, Nick
Coffey, Ms Ann


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coleman, Iain


Allen, Graham
Colman, Tony


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Connarty, Michael


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Ashton, Joe
Corbett, Robin


Atherton, Ms Candy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Atkins, Charlotte
Corston, Jean


Austin, John
Cousins, Jim


Banks, Tony
Cox, Tom


Barron, Kevin
Cranston, Ross


Battle, John
Crausby, David


Bayley, Hugh
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Beard, Nigel
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Begg, Miss Anne



Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, Andrew F
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Best, Harold
Darvill, Keith


Betts, Clive
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blackman, Liz
Davidson, Ian


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blizzard, Bob
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Borrow, David



Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dawson, Hilton


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bradshaw, Ben
Denham, John


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dobbin, Jim


Browne, Desmond
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Donohoe, Brian H


Burden, Richard
Doran, Frank


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dowd, Jim


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Drew, David


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Caplin, Ivor
Ennis, Jeff


Caton, Martin
Etherington, Bill


Cawsey, Ian
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Chaytor, David
Flint, Caroline


Clapham, Michael
Flynn, Paul


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)



Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Foulkes, George


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Fyfe, Maria


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Galloway, George






Gardiner, Barry
McWalter, Tony


Gerrard, Neil
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mallaber, Judy


Godman, Dr Norman A
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Goggins, Paul
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Martlew, Eric


Grocott, Bruce
Maxton, John


Grogan, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Meale, Alan


Hanson, David
Merron, Gillian


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Healey, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hill, Keith
Miller, Andrew


Hinchliffe, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoey, Kate
Morley, Elliot


Hope, Phil
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hopkins, Kelvin



Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)



Howells, Dr Kim
Mountford, Kali


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mudie, George


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mullin, Chris


Humble, Mrs Joan
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hurst, Alan
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hutton, John
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Illsley, Eric
O'Hara, Eddie


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Olner, Bill


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jenkins, Brian
Pearson, Ian


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Pond, Chris



Pope, Greg


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pound, Stephen


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


Kemp, Fraser
Purchase, Ken


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Quinn, Lawrie


Khabra, Piara S
Rapson, Syd


Kidney, David
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rooney, Teny


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Rowlands, Ted


Lepper, David
Roy, Frank


Leslie, Christopher
Ruddock, Joan


Levitt, Tom
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Salter, Martin


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Savidge, Malcolm


Linton, Martin
Sawford, Phil


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lock, David
Shaw, Jonathan


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry


McCabe, Steve
Shipley, Ms Debra


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Singh, Marsha



Skinner, Dennis


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McDonnell, John
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McGuire, Mrs Anne



McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McNulty, Tony
Snape, Peter


MacShane, Denis
Soley, Clive





Squire, Ms Rachel
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Tynan, Bill


Steinberg, Gerry
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stoate, Dr Howard
Walley, Ms Joan


Stringer, Graham
Ward, Ms Claire


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wareing, Robert N


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Watts, David


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
White, Brain



Whitehead, Dr Alan


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)



Temple-Morris, Peter
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wills, Michael


Thomas Gareth R (Harrow W)
Winnick, David


Timms, Stephen
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Tipping, Paddy
Wood, Mike


Todd, Mark
Woodward, Shaun


Touhig, Don
Worthington, Tony


Trickett, Jon
Wray, James


Truswell, Paul
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Mike Hall and Mr. David Jamieson.


Turner, Neil (Wigan)



Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 24

NATURE CONSERVATION AND HERITAGE PRESERVATION

Amendments made: No. 152, in page 14, line 12, leave out—
'the owner of the land or the relevant advisory body'
and insert "a specified person".

No. 153, in page 14, line 14, leave out "or it".

No. 154, in page 14, leave out line 30.

No. 155, in page 14, line 40, leave out—
'a National Park in Wales'
and insert—
'Wales in respect of which the Countryside Council for Wales are not the relevant authority'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 27

REFERENCE BY RELEVANT ADVISORY BODY

Amendments made: No. 156, in page 16, line 20, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "appropriate Minister".

No. 157, in page 16, line 22, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "appropriate Minister".

No. 158, in page 16, line 26, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "appropriate Minister".

No. 159, in page 16, line 29, at end insert—
'but as if references to the Secretary of State were references to the appropriate Minister'.

No. 160, in page 16, line 30, after "section" insert—
'the appropriate Minister' means—

(a) in relation to land as respects which by virtue of section 20(6) the Forestry Commissioners are the relevant authority, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and
(b) in relation to other land, the Secretary of state;'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 28

APPEAL BY PERSON INTERESTED IN LAND

Amendments made: No. 161, in page 16, line 43, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "appropriate Minister".

No. 162, in page 17, line 2, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "appropriate Minister".

No. 163, in page 17, line 6, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "appropriate Minister".

No. 164, in page 17, line 9, at end insert—
'but as if references to the Secretary of State were references to the appropriate Minister.
( ) In this section "the appropriate Minister" has the same meaning as in section 27.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 29

EXCLUSION OR RESTRICTION OF ACCESS IN CASE OF EMERGENCY

Amendment made: No. 165, in page 17, line 11, leave out "is" and insert "are".—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 30

REGULATIONS RELATING TO EXCLUSION OR RESTRICTION OF ACCESS

Amendments made: No. 166, in page 17, line 25, at end insert—
'(cc) prescribing the form of any notice or application referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c),'.

No. 167, in page 17, line 25, at end insert—
'(cd) restricting the cases in which a person who is interested in any land only as the holder of rights of common may make an application under section 22 or 23 in respect of the land,'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 31

GUIDANCE BY COUNTRYSIDE BODIES TO NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITIES

Amendments made: No. 168, in page 18, line 5, after "guidance" insert "(a)".

No. 169, in page 18, line 6, at end insert—
'and
(b) to the Forestry Commissioners with respect to the discharge by the Forestry Commissioners of any functions conferred on them by virtue of section 20(6) in relation to land in England.'.

No. 170, in page 18, line 8, after "guidance" insert "(a)".

No. 171, in page 18, line 9, at end insert—
'and
(b) to the Forestry Commissioners with respect to the discharge by the Forestry Commissioners of any functions conferred on them by virtue of section 20(6) in relation to land in Wales.'.

No. 172, in page 18, line 19, after "authority" insert "or the Forestry Commissioners".—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 34

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AGREEMENT

Mr. Meacher: I beg to move amendment No. 173, in page 19, line 31, at end insert—
'(3A) A notice under subsection (3) must contain particulars of the right of appeal conferred by section 36.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 179, 181 and 183.

Mr. Meacher: In Committee, the Government undertook to return to the House with amendments such as these. Amendments Nos. 173 and 181 will require that an access authority should, in serving a notice of intention to erect or maintain a means of access where it has not been possible to reach an agreement with the owner or occupier, include on the notice information about the right of appeal. Similar legislation such as that covering notices under planning law includes such provision, and the amendments will bring the Bill into line with that legislation.
Amendment No. 179 aims to clarify the procedure with which access authorities should comply before serving a notice of intention to carry out works on a means of access under clause 35. We intend that, before serving such a notice, the authority should have made efforts to enter into an agreement with the owner or occupier of the land to carry out similar works. The amendment provides that the access authority may serve such a notice if it is satisfied that it is unable to conclude the agreement on reasonable terms. We had quite a significant discussion about that in Committee.
The amendment enables access authorities to prevent negotiations from dragging on indefinitely by determining that they are unable to conclude the agreement on reasonable terms. They will then be able to serve notice of intention to carry out works. The cost of such works will fall entirely on the access authority. The owner or occupier has a right of appeal against the works on grounds that the works are not necessary, that the means of access should be provided elsewhere, or that the works have already been carried out.
Chapter III includes adequate provision for appeal against any notice served, but it is important that authorities are not prevented from taking action to secure means of access to access land by becoming locked in endless fruitless negotiations to secure an agreement. Where they are satisfied that they cannot reach an agreement on reasonable terms, they should be able to move on and to serve notice where needed.
Amendment No. 183 relates to the criteria that must be met for an access authority to be able to seek a magistrates order to remove an obstruction of a means of access. Broadly speaking, the criteria are that the authority must in the past three years have served at least two notices—under clauses 34 or 35—relating to that means of access. That is qualified by the requirement that the notices should not have any appeal pending in respect of them, or have been cancelled on appeal. The amendment adds the requirement that the period of notice given for compliance with both notices must have expired.
We gave a commitment to consider an amendment along those lines in Committee. Although we think it unlikely that an access authority could obtain a


magistrates order before the notice period had expired, we agree that such an occurrence would be undesirable. That is what lies behind the amendment. I hope that the House will agree that the clause should be amended accordingly.

Mr. Green: I thank the Minister for the concessions inherent in the group of amendments. As he said, we had a long, detailed and sporadically passionate debate in Committee about whether being reasonable meant appearing reasonable to the access authority itself, or being reasonable in some wider and more objective sense. I am happy to say that the formulation that the Government have come up with is much better and fairer than that in the original draft of the Bill.
I am also glad that the Minister has taken on board the points that we made about the appeal and enforcement processes. I also welcome his confirmation that the access authority will be responsible for the works carried out, if necessary, under that particular process. The amendments significantly improve on the original draft of the Bill and we are happy to support them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 174, in page 19, line 35, leave out "carries" and insert "carry".

No. 175, in page 19, line 37, leave out "it" and insert "them".

No. 176, in page 19, line 37, leave out "its" and insert "their".

No. 177, in page 19, line 41, leave out "'carries" and insert "carry".

No. 178, in page 19, line 43, leave out "it" and insert "them".—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 35

PROVISION OF ACCESS BY ACCESS AUTHORITY IN ABSENCE OF AGREEMENT

Amendments made: No. 179, in page 20, line 10, leave out from "are" to end of line 11 and insert—
'satisfied that they are unable to conclude on reasonable terms an agreement under section 33 with the owner or occupier of the land for the carrying out of the works'.

No. 180, in page 20, line 14, leave out "intends" and insert "intend".

No. 181, in page 20, line 16, at end insert—
'(1A) A notice under subsection (1) must contain particulars of the right of appeal conferred by section 36.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 36

APPEALS RELATING TO NOTICES

Amendment made: No. 182, in page 21, line 14, leave out "its" and insert "their".—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 37

ORDER TO REMOVE OBSTRUCTION

Amendment made: No. 183, in page 21, line 34, after " 35(1)" insert—
'in respect of which the period specified in the notice has expired'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 38

POWERS OF ENTRY FOR PURPOSES OF PART I

Amendments made: No. 184, in page 22, line 34, at end insert—
'( ) A person who is authorised by the Forestry Commissioners to do so may enter any land—

(a) for the purpose of determining whether any power conferred on the Forestry Commissioners by Chapter II should be exercised in relation to the land, or
(b) in connection with an appeal under any provision of this Part.'

No. 185, in page 22, line 47, leave out "dwelling-house" and insert "dwelling".—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 41

INTERPRETATION OF PART I

Amendments made: No. 186, in page 23, line 37, leave out—
'(as defined by section 22 of the Commons Registration Act 1965)'.

No. 187, in page 23, line 40, at end insert—
' "livestock" means cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses or poultry, and for the purposes of this sub-paragraph "cattle" means bulls, cows, oxen, heifers or calves, "horses" include asses and mules, and "poultry" means domestic fowls, turkeys, geese or ducks;'.

No. 188, in page 24, line 12, at end insert—
'"rights of common" has the same meaning as in the Commons Registration Act 1965;'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 42

REPEAL OF PREVIOUS LEGISLATION, AND AMENDMENTS RELATING TO PART I

Amendment made: No. 189, in page 24, leave out lines 29 and 30 and insert—
'(b) sections 61 to 63 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (which relate to reviews of access requirements and the preparation of maps).
(1A) No access agreement or access order under Part V of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (access to open country) may be made after the commencement of this section in relation to land which is open country or registered common land for the purposes of this Part.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

Schedule 4

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO PART I

Amendments made: No. 211, in page 45, leave out lines 1 to 6.

No. 212, in page 45, line 14, at end insert—

Countryside Act 1968

In section 2(6) of the Countryside Act 1968 (Countryside Agency and Countryside Council for Wales to make recommendations to public bodies in relation to byelaws) for "and the Act of 1949" there is substituted ", the Act of 1949 and Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000".'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

New Clause 16

COMPENSATION

'.—(1) Any person with an interest in land who shows that he has suffered a loss in consequence of the exercise of the right of access conferred by section 2(1) of this Act, shall be entitled to compensation to make good such loss.

(2) A claim for compensation under this section shall be made within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(3) In this section "interest", in relation to land, includes any estate in land and any right over land, whether the right is exercisable by virtue of the ownership of an interest in land or by virtue of a licence or agreement, and in particular includes sporting rights:.—[Mr. Garnier.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Garnier: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 16 should be uncontroversial, as it is in line not only with legislation sponsored by both Labour and Conservative Governments, but with the common law. If it is accepted, it will allow the Secretary of State or the Minister to state with confidence that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government have placed great store on statements under section 19 of that Act. Although the Act does not come into force until 2 October 2000, it is right that we should be told now whether the Government are confident that the Bill is to be covered by a statement under either section 19(1)(a) or 19(1)(b).
10.30 pm
Perhaps the Minister will remember that when he made his statement on the publication of his consultation document and I asked him about compensation arrangements, he was so unsighted or inadequately prepared, or both, that the Speaker, on hearing his answer, allowed me to ask my question again. His second answer was no better than his first.
Why do I say that new clause 16 is in line with legislation sponsored by both Labour and Conservative Governments? Part V of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which was passed under a Labour Government, and sections 25 to 28 of the Highways Act 1980, which was passed under a Conservative Government, contain provisions permitting access over land, but also provide for compensation to be payable to the extent that the land's value has depreciated by reason of public access.
The approach taken in those statutes accords with established constitutional practice and European convention on human rights guidelines, and provides clear precedents on how a fair balance is to be struck on such matters in the United Kingdom. Those considerations call into question the legal propriety of the approach taken in the Bill.
Although I have referred to those statutes, the common law also recognises the importance of compensation for individuals called upon to make sacrifices of their property in the public interest. I refer to the well-known case of Burmah Oil, which was decided, in 1965, by the Judicial Committee of the other place. That case embodies

the principle in a presumption of statutory interpretation that Parliament is generally to be taken to have intended compensation to be payable.
That that was in fact the intention of Parliament in connection, for example, with the 1949 Act is confirmed by the comments of the late John Silkin, the Act's sponsoring Minister. On Second Reading, he said:
I think it is right that if an owner of land suffers loss, and can prove that he has suffered loss, as a result of allowing the public to roam over his land, he should be entitled to compensation.—[Official Report, 31 March 1949; Vol. 463, c. 1480.]
Those comments seem to reflect established constitutional practice.
What about landowners' rights under the European convention on human rights? First, the Government have publicly stated—in the White Paper "Rights Brought Home", and in the provisions of the Human Rights Act itself—their commitment to comply with the ECHR. Secondly, property rights are protected under the European convention. Thirdly, the right to respect for one's home and privacy is also respected in the European convention.
Fourthly, to be compatible with the ECHR, any open countryside enactment would have to strike a fair balance—which means, inter alia, that access to the open countryside must not place a disproportionate burden on landowners, and that it must not cause any unjustified discrimination.
Fifthly, the Bill—albeit through silence—makes it clear that no compensation will be payable to landowners whose land becomes subject to the new rights of access. It appears that that refusal of compensation rests on an unexplored factual premise that no financial loss would be caused. We have yet to hear the reasons for that, although it is contradicted by a detailed and authoritative study presented by Dr. Noel Russell of Manchester university.
In those circumstances, we suggest that, without new clause 16, the Bill would be open to serious challenge under the European convention. As no compensation whatsoever is proposed for the losses that will occur, it is hard to see how the Government can begin to justify the fair balance requirement for interference with property rights.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Given that the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that it is a matter of natural justice that there should be compensation if the land value goes down, does he agree that, in essence, either the land value will go down, in which case there will be a strong case for compensation, or it will not, in which case the Government should not be afraid of accepting that responsibility?

Mr. Garnier: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman and I shall develop that point later in my speech.
Statutes currently permitting access over land provide for compensation to be payable for the amount by which the value of the land has been depreciated by reason of the public access. The approach taken in these statutes accords with established constitutional practice and ECHR requirements. They also provide clear parliamentary precedents on how a fair balance is to be struck.
The Government already have a reputation for saying one thing and doing another. They should not enhance that aspect of their reputation by leaving this Bill in its


current state. Ministers are now required to consider at an early stage whether any Bill is convention compatible and to ensure that they, their Departments and their officials are fully seized of the gravity of the obligations set out in the convention.
I have to assume that the Minister, especially after the question and answer session that he and I had when he made his statement 18 months or so ago, has already given careful consideration to possible objections to the Bill that I shall draw to his attention.
First, as he will accept, property rights are protected under the ECHR and should be protected by the Bill. ECHR rights are to be secured and enjoyed by everyone. That is clear from the text of article 1 of the convention. That it includes companies, partnerships and other legal as well as natural persons is made clear in the opening words of article 1 of protocol 1, which protects property rights. All of us as citizens have the right to protection of our property rights under the convention.
Protocol 1 to article 1 provides:
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of all his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.
The case law of the European Court of Human Rights establishes that article 1 of that protocol contains three rules. I quote from the court's judgment in the case of Sporrong v. Lonroth in 1983:
The first rule, which is of general nature, announces the principle of peaceful enjoyment of property; it is set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph. The second rule covers deprivation of possessions and subjects it to certain conditions; it appears in the second sentence of the same paragraph. The third rule recognises that the States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest, by enforcing such laws as they deem necessary for the purpose; it is contained in the second paragraph.
Secondly, the right to respect for one's home and privacy is also protected under the ECHR. Any proposal for giving rights of access to the countryside has to be considered under article 8 of the convention which provides:

(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The word "home", the European court has observed in the case of Neimietz v. Germany, deserves wide interpretation and is not confined to one's home. In the same case, the court did not consider it possible or necessary to attempt an exhaustive definition of the notion of private life; again it was not prepared to define that concept narrowly.
A right of access to land where the landowner has his home would clearly interfere with the rights to respect for the home and to privacy, an integral aspect of which is the entitlement to exclude entirely the outside world. The Government's consultation paper, published about

18 months ago, appeared to recognise the need to give protection to the relevant convention rights. Paragraph 3.16 stated:
In general, the Government considers that people should have a right of access only to land which is not developed. This will protect people's privacy in their homes, gardens and places where they go to work, other than on agricultural and forestry land.
I welcome the Government's recognition of the need to safeguard rights protected by article 8 of the convention.
Thirdly, to be compatible with the European convention, any access provision must strike a fair balance. That means that access to the open countryside must not place a disproportionate burden on landowners and must not cause discrimination.
Depending on the precise circumstances of individual landowners, enactment of clause 2 may require scrutiny under article 8 or under any of the three protocol 1/article 1 rules to which I have referred. Whichever applies, the European Court's case law establishes that measures taken must strike a fair balance, must not place a disproportionate burden on landowners, and must not cause discrimination.
Enactment of the proposals in the Bill could lead to the different treatment of lowland and upland sheep farmers, for example, or of a commercial shoot operated on moorland subject to rights of access and one on land without rights of access. Those distinctions will have to be justified in the light of article 14, which the Minister knows only too well prohibits discrimination and reinforces the case for compensation to be paid to landowners affected by a right to roam.
The level of compensation provided is central to an assessment of whether the fair balance has been struck. The recent case of Lithgow v. the United Kingdom offers guidance in that regard. In that case, the court judge stated:
Compensation terms are material to the assessment of whether a fair balance has been struck between the various interests at stake and, notably, whether a disproportionate burden has been imposed on the person deprived of his possessions.
Lithgow's case also indicates that "only in exceptional circumstances" can deprivation of possessions without compensation be justified.
The Government were explicit in proposal 29 in their consultation paper that
owners and occupiers should not be eligible for general compensation for access to their land.
That position is implicitly maintained in the Bill. In the light of the European Court of Human Rights case law, that is a striking omission. Clause 2 will reduce the existing rights of landowners significantly and can be characterised only as a deprivation of possession. Only in exceptional circumstances can deprivation take place justifiably without compensation.
In the consultation paper, the Government tried to justify the result by claiming in paragraph 3.48 that the proposals would
not have major financial implications
for most of those affected, because
experience suggests that there will not usually be any significant damage to walls, fences and the land itself.
I have referred already to Dr. Russell's report, which casts doubt on that assertion. It suggests that there are likely to be significant cost implications in proposals similar to


those in the Bill, and that they would have an effect on land values. Since the consultation paper was published, the Government have not advanced any counter-arguments in response to the Russell report.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. and learned Friend spoke of the diminution in land values that could flow from the right of access. Does he intend to deal with the costs incurred by landowners who are obliged to maintain bridges, buy insurance and ensure that the land is clear of obstacles, and so on? Those out-of-pocket expenses may be different in kind from a diminution in land value. Does my hon. and learned Friend think that compensation should be payable in respect of such expenditure, and is the matter covered by the new clause?

Mr. Garnier: My right hon. and learned Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to that matter. Indeed, he drew attention to it during an earlier debate this evening, in a very lucid exposition. The problem that I recognise in a Bill from which new clause 16 is absent is that the burden of insurance falls disproportionately upon the landowner when he is performing a task for the public good. It seems to me—and I dare say that my right hon. and learned Friend agrees—that it is unfair, unjust and contrary to the human rights legislation for the Government to require individual landowners to take upon themselves a disproportionate burden of the cost of furnishing safety and access provision when it is for the general public that such measures are being provided.

Mr. Grieve: We discussed this issue earlier with regard to trespassers, and it is central. The Government have made it clear that the duty of the landowner towards the people coming on to the land will remain the same. Those people will have the same rights under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 whether they are on access land or on land on which they have no right to be. From the landowner's point of view, the difference is that he will have to make a completely different assessment about the risk of such people coming into contact with material that may injure them. They will be coming on to his land in far larger numbers, and the risk will be augmented as a result.

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend makes a point of equal value to that made by my right hon. and learned Friend. It seems to us a matter of fairness and justice that the burden of insurance should be evenly distributed across the taxpaying population, and not visited solely on individual landowners, be they human beings or corporations. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend for their assistance in this matter.

Mr. Simon Thomas: There are landowners in my constituency, in the Ystwyth valley, who have ancient lead and silver mineworkings on their land. They will now have to have regard to the fact that large numbers of people will be traversing their land and will have to expend considerable sums of money to make those mineworkings safe for public access. Should they not have a route to compensation under the new clause?

Mr. Garnier: As I understand it—and I am sure that either the hon. Gentleman or the right hon. Member for

Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will correct me if I am wrong—owners of mines are already required to keep their mineworkings safe. None the less, the hon. Gentleman's general point fits in well with the new clause that we propose.
May I take this opportunity to join my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) in commiserating with the House—up to a point—in that we shall no longer have the advantage of the presence of the hon. Gentleman' s party leader, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon, after the next election? The contest for his seat will be fiercely fought, but I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman will have plenty to do in Wales after the end of his career in this place.

Mr. Bennett: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not accept that there is an existing liability on landowners under health and safety regulations, under which they must ensure that the land that is worked on is safe for those who work on it? I cannot see that there is any change of degree in other people coming on to the land, or that any extra standards are required, other than those that exist under health and safety measures at present.

Mr. Garnier: In that question, the hon. Gentleman—I do not know whether he speaks on behalf of the whole of his party—portrays a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the balance of risk and the concept of proportionality under the European convention on human rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 was passed with his support, and he ought really to study the jurisprudence under that system of law rather more closely before making such interventions.
Of course all employers have a duty of care to look after their employees, whether they work in a factory or on the open land. However, the size of the problem will be wholly different under the new access provisions. Thousands of people will be given the right of access to other people's land under this measure.

Mr. Hogg: Millions.

Mr. Garnier: Millions, as my right hon. and learned Friend says. It does not matter what the accurate number is; the principle is clear and concerns the proportionality of this invasion of property rights. I use that term not in an old-fashioned Tory sense but in a strict legal sense.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: In a pompous sense.

Mr. Garnier: It is interesting that Mr. Angry, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)—who is well known for opening his mouth before he engages his brain—is prepared to snigger at the rights of his constituents and possibly others while the debate on compensation progresses. I regret that the hon. Gentleman—who is now the Chairman of a Select Committee—should behave as he has this evening. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to witter on, may I suggest that he does so either on his feet—if has the guts to get on his feet—or outside this Chamber? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The Government are giving the public a right to roam; I suggest that the hon. Gentleman makes use of it.
The Government's consultation paper suggested that a refusal of compensation could be justified on the basis that the benefits of the proposal will outweigh its costs, but that confuses two questions. Even if the public interest justifies interference in principle, it is a different matter to say that the costs can be imposed without compensation. On the contrary, as has been seen, the European convention on human rights generally requires that, even where the public benefit outweighs any loss to individual owners, those owners should be compensated so that the loss is equitable and shared among the entire public, rather than imposed disproportionately on affected landowners. That underscores the points made by right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)
The consultation paper contained a number of inconsistencies; are we surprised, with this Government? For example, it said that the public benefit would accrue from "increased opportunities for recreation" which will improve public health and reduce social divisions. It also anticipated that
increased walking in the open countryside
would flow from the Bill. Yet when it came to compensation, the paper indicated that the
proposals are not expected to result immediately in a sizeable increase in walking in the countryside but rather an expansion of the area over which people walk".
That is comforting.
I trust that the Government will keep an open mind on the highly important issue of compensation. The fact that they were guilty of inconsistency in their consultation paper is worrying but not fatal. I urge the Minister to consider carefully the terms of new clause 16 and, with all due diffidence, invite him to say why the Bill could not be improved by its addition.

Mr. Hogg: If my hon. and learned Friend manages to persuade the Government to accede to the principle of new clause 16, will he urge on the Minister the desirability of setting the scheme in the Bill? And if the Minister insists on proceeding by way of regulation, will my hon. and learned Friend urge on him the desirability of making the regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure?

Mr. Garnier: I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. One of my great concerns over the past three years—and, indeed, when we were in government—has been that Ministers have taken unto themselves powers to make legislation by regulation and secondary powers, not allowing the House properly to consider the true effect of the powers that they are giving themselves. Let me take an example from the legal affairs portfolio. Under the Access to Justice Act 1999, the Lord Chancellor gave himself 17—or it may have been 27—regulatory powers to create law without this House being able to deal with it, either in a Bill or in the more acceptable way of dealing with secondary legislation mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham.
An Act of Parliament that conflicts with a convention—especially a convention that the Government have deliberately brought into domestic law—may please the Treasury now, but it will not please the Treasury when the legal challenges start in the courts.
A solution may be found in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which allowed a five-year period for any damage to become apparent. If there is no apparent need for compensation within five years, the Treasury will not suffer. If there is, it is just and sensible for compensation to be paid; it would be in compliance with the convention—not to mention the European Union charter of fundamental rights about which we are beginning to hear more.
I trust that the Minister has listened carefully to the points that I made on behalf of the Opposition and of all people who are interested in fairness under the Bill. I hope that he will give us some cogent reasons for his view—if such it is—that the new clause should not be accepted.

Mr. Wigley: I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response on the principle that compensation should be payable in the minority of cases in which circumstances might produce a material difference in the value of property, which might not only be the value of the land. I can think of one example in which access to open land is extremely close to a farmhouse. There is no other reasonable access. Many people will have to pass close to the farmhouse to gain access to the open land, so if that makes the house less valuable on the market, the question of compensation for its owners will arise.
That may apply in only a minority of cases, but other circumstances may arise. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and others referred to dangers on the land. Extra expenditure might be needed to cope with such dangers. Such cases might be few, but the Human Rights Act 1998 and other legislation must surely come into play. There must be some provision in the Bill to deal with such matters. When the Minister responds, will he address those difficult cases for which there should be a mechanism in the Bill?

Mr. David Heath: My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) was right to point out during an intervention on the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) that there are two options: either a significant and recognisable loss to individuals will be occasioned by the Bill, in which case it must be right that the Government have a duty to provide compensation; or there will be no loss, so no compensation will be paid and the Government will not be the losers.
I tend towards the second option. There will not be many cases in which a substantial loss occurs as a result of the measure. In some circumstances, a quantifiable loss may be established. I take seriously the fact that, in the case of hill farmers—especially tenants—we are dealing with people whose land is only marginally viable. A small difference in their circumstances could have catastrophic effects on their business. It would be wrong for Parliament arbitrarily to deprive them of their living through this measure—albeit unintentionally.
No compensation process should allow either spurious claims or claims that might be made to cause difficulty for the Government or to bring the legislation into disrepute. That would be quite wrong. However, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough pointed out, there are mechanisms that would deal with that. For example, in Committee, I cited the provisions under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949,


which require that genuine loss must be shown before compensation is payable. That seems to be entirely appropriate.
11 pm
I cannot possibly compete with the hon. and learned Member's exposition concerning the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998—nor would I wish to do so. He raised serious questions which the Government must answer. They have relied so far only on the assurance that the Bill, as currently framed, accords with that Act. The Government should at least respond to the case for a compensation mechanism. I applaud the fact that we have had the opportunity to discuss such a mechanism, but, unless the Minister can assure me on the very important points that have been raised, I will support the new clause in the Lobby if it is pressed to the vote.

Miss Anne McIntosh: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on having moved the new clause so eloquently. I lament the fact that the Minister apparently has such a closed mind, but perhaps he will prove me wrong. His answers may show that he has an open mind on the issue of compensation. However, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), the Minister said:
A cost benefit study for the Government, undertaken by independent consultants, supports the view that landowners will not suffer significant losses or costs as a result of the new right of access such as would warrant the provision of compensation.—[Official Report, 17 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 670W.]
I support the new clause. Let me bring to the Minister's attention the fact that, if the Bill is enacted without it, a learned counsel not unrelated to the Prime Minister would be well equipped, when she returns from maternity leave, to bring one of the first cases under the European convention on human rights when it comes into force later this year.
I go further than my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough. I argue vigorously that there could be three heads of compensation. The first, which as my hon. and learned Friend so eloquently outlined, is the right to protect property under the European convention on human rights. As he also said, the second is the right to compensation for preparing the ground for access. That point has received some sympathy in the House.
The third head of compensation, however, appears in new clause 3, which was regrettably not selected for debate. I hope that the Minister will also consider the provision in the new clause that calls for rights of compensation. It states:
Any person who, on entering or remaining on access land for the purposes of
access and enjoyment of the land and who causes damage should make good
that damage and compensate the landowner for any damage so caused.
I have great sympathy with the arguments for a greater balance in the distribution of risk for insurance purposes between the interested parties. I have great pleasure in supporting new clause 16.

Mr. Hogg: I support the principle behind the new clause. As I told my hon. and learned Friend the Member

for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), I believe that such a scheme should be on the face of the Bill or, at the very least, should be dealt with by regulations that are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. My preference, however, is for the provision to appear in the Bill.
We need to be clear about the fact that, as a result of the Bill, farmers and landowners will incur expenditure: that is absolutely certain and to deny it is an absurdity. The expenditure will fall under certain obvious heads. For example, it is certain that there will be increased insurance premiums to pay. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) suggested that some landowners already incur insurance premiums in respect of their workers—and that, no doubt, is true. However, on the estates with which we are dealing, the number of workers can probably be counted on the fingers of two hands. We are speaking of unlimited access—millions of people will have the right of access, although it will not be exercised by millions. That will have a dramatic effect on the insurance premiums that must be paid, which will be much larger than any premiums currently paid.
Secondly, there will be greatly increased maintenance costs. As a consequence of considerably increased access, there will be much heavier usage of roads, tracks, bridges and so on, and inevitably costs will be incurred in making those good. The insurance companies will require regular inspections and the undertaking of maintenance works.
That brings me to the third head of expenditure. Leaving aside obvious making good of bridges and roads, there will be the obligation on the part of a landowner-farmer regularly to survey the land to see, for example, that there are no obvious or less obvious traps—the barbed wire and coils of wire that we mentioned when we discussed amendment No. 8. That is not a negligible burden.
Take another head, which is of a slightly different kind. There may be—I do not want to put it higher than that—economic loss flowing from the right of access. I can envisage certain obvious heads of economic loss—for example, the loss of lambs to flocks that are running on the mountainside. There may well be a diminution in lambing as a consequence of public access. There may well be a diminution in the value of shooting rights as a consequence of public access. That is real economic loss.
A different point—although in a sense it encapsulates the whole—is the plain fact that land is less valuable when other people have rights over it that they did not previously have. That is difficult to measure, but not impossible. From time to time, land valuation tribunals have had to consider the effect on land on which new easements or other rights are suddenly created. It is fundamentally wrong to deny that there will be both costs and loss.
That takes us to the difficult question of where the loss should fall. Historically, the House of Commons and, indeed, our constitutional system have not always recognised the need for compensation. There are those who know that I have been responsible for regulations that did not provide for compensation. I am thinking, for example, of the head deboning prohibitions that we imposed as part of the BSE requirements. There are many other examples, because historically the House has taken the view that when one imposes restrictions or


prohibitions, one does not compensate. That has been the historical point of view, and I have some sympathy with it, but I think that it is changing, for a number of reasons.

Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. Is not one of the reasons—perhaps the major reason—why it is changing the Human Rights Act 1998, and the need for Ministers to comply with section 19? The Government must make up their mind whether the Bill is to come under section 19(1)(a) or section 19(1)(b), and they must make it abundantly clear which route they intend to take.

Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. There are three reasons why we are changing from the historical position. The first is that Governments are regulating more in areas which are bringing about economic loss. We are therefore more sensitive to the issue than we have been historically. Secondly, there is a greater belief in defensible rights in the community as a whole which are capable of being quantified in monetary compensation than was the case 20 or 30 years ago. That is a factor which stands separate and independent from the European convention on human rights.
However, my hon. and learned Friend is right when he says that the introduction to domestic law of the European convention—particularly the articles on compensation—fundamentally alters the terms of trade. Therefore, although in the past I have justified the position that the Government should not pay compensation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I should not intervene, but those head deboners were in my constituency, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not very helpful at the time.

Mr. Hogg: First, I made no secret about the fact that I had done what you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said I had done. Secondly, I am recanting, and that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you should find immensely attractive.
I have in the past justified Government not paying compensation, but I have come to the view that I was probably wrong at the time. That we must change I am certain, because of the implications of the European convention.
A variety of arguments come into play. There are the arguments that stem from the European convention, incorporated into domestic law, but there is also the argument of natural justice. In the end, we have to determine where loss falls, and, when Parliament decides to impose burdens and costs on others, the state should shoulder that burden. We need to be cautious that we put in place a system that prevents individuals from fleecing the public, but that is not beyond our ability. Admittedly, it might be to the benefit of lawyers, and that might not be entirely welcome to the House.

Mr. Grieve: My right hon. and learned Friend may agree that, in view of the nature of the challenges that would be raised against the legislation when it reached the statute book, failure to introduce the new clause would probably be an even greater recipe for money for the legal profession.

Mr. Hogg: Yes, subject to the fact that there would be only one or two challenges, then a declaration of

incompatibility, and then the Government would be in the soup. The Opposition, and, I suspect, much of the rest of the House, are agreed that we need to look again at the matter with a view to considering a proper compensation scheme, which does not enable landowners to fleece the public but which ensures that proper costs and losses are reimbursed.

Mr. Grieve: The principle that has been put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) in introducing new clause 16 is unarguable, and with the advent of the Human Rights Act and its incorporation of the European convention in our law, I am astonished that the matter has not been properly grasped by the Government.
The only explanation offered against compensation is that there is no necessity for it because the Government are confident, not of the lack of need to compensate, but of the fact that they cannot foresee any circumstances in which compensation might be required.
During the course of the evening, we have considered a number of areas where the likelihood of compensation must arise. I hope that the Minister will note that this is not simply a partisan issue. With regard to whether it was right that people on access land should be deprived of the protection of the Occupiers' Liability Acts, I share the Minister's view that they should not be, and that they should continue to have trespassers' protection. That is all very well, but who will pay for the extra costs on the landowner which must flow from such a provision? The risk will clearly be entirely different depending on whether a few dozen or many thousands come on to the land in any given year.
11.15 pm
To pick up on a comment that was made earlier, all health and safety legislation—a subject with which I am familiar—is about balancing risk. When balancing risk, one must consider the number of people who are likely to come into contact with a specific risk. If the Bill succeeds, as the Minister for the Environment wants, he hopes to open up large tracts of countryside, which have hitherto been rarely visited—except sometimes by people creeping over it at night, as they did over Kinder Scout in the 1930s, or by some hon. Members, who like to sleep in other people's woodland or moorland. Such land will be accessible to many more people. The risk will therefore increase. There is no reason for the landowner to bear that burden.
I agree that there may be diminution in the value of the land, although the Minister may be right that it will be negligible or unidentifiable. However, he referred to honeypot areas, which may develop. What will happen in the case of a honeypot that was previously a large tract of countryside, in which people could experience quiet enjoyment but could find, after the Bill is enacted, that they have to share it with many thousands of people? It is astonishingly optimistic to believe that that will not have a quantifiable financial effect which requires compensation.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider, because the fairness of the Government's approach will be assessed partly by their willingness to accept the principle of compensation. They currently give the impression of being ostriches hiding their heads in the sand. I am convinced that they will receive some unpleasant


surprises. In the Minister's position, I would prefer to be able to say that the Government had faced the problem from the outset and that they would pay compensation when required, instead of giving the impression of running away from responsibility.

Mr. Meacher: In the past hour, we have listened to a rather lengthy, slightly legalistic and perhaps esoteric, but certainly one-sided, presentation of the costs and benefits of the Bill. I want to offer a more balanced presentation of the measure's impact.
New clause 16 would provide general compensation for landowners and others who have an interest in the land. The Government's position is clear: general compensation is not warranted. I went to considerable lengths in Committee to explain the reasons for that.
In drawing up the Bill, we have borne in mind the needs and interests of landowners and others who own and use the affected land. The Bill contains numerous safeguards designed to minimise the impact on landowners and managers. The right is limited to access on foot and is subject to comprehensive restrictions. Even swimming or organised games are not allowed under the new right. The affected land is uncultivated, and often in the most wild areas of the country. Walking through fields of crops, even where livestock are likely to be intensively grazed, is not permitted. Dogs must be on leads where there are livestock. Buildings and their curtilages, including gardens, will be specifically excluded, although we do not expect to find many houses in open countryside.

Mr. Garnier: The Minister's remarks are doubtless true and interesting. However, they do not answer our point. What is the difference between general compensation and any other sort of compensation that he may have in mind?

Mr. Meacher: General compensation would be compensation for the general right of access allowing people to walk over open and uncultivated country that is privately owned. As for specific compensation, referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I have made it clear repeatedly that the landowner or land manager would be able to recoup the costs incurred in facilitating and maintaining access—for example, providing stiles, waymarks or car parks.
The Bill makes it clear that the right will not interfere with landowners' ability to use and develop their land as they wish. Although we do not expect walkers to pose significant problems for landowners, we have provided for landowners to have the right to close their land for up to 28 days for any reason and without permission. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) is exceedingly familiar with the subject, but others may be less so.
If there are genuine land management reasons for a need to restrict access still further, landowners will be able to apply to the countryside bodies or to national park authorities.

Mr. Hogg: The Minister was good enough to remind us that landowners who incur specific expenditure can

recoup that expenditure. Will he be kind enough to refer us to the relevant clause, so that we can establish whether it is wide enough?

Mr. Meacher: I cannot refer the House to the clause instantly, but I can quickly give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the justification in the Bill. What I have said is unquestionably the case, although I do not carry the details of 75 clauses in my head.

Mr. Garnier: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. and learned Gentleman has already intervened. I shall allow him to do so once more, but I am trying to make a case. I listened carefully to him when he tried to make a case for three or four times as long. If he listens a little more to what I have to say, I will give way to him later if he wishes.
The Government recognise—the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) raised this point—that in the more popular areas visitor pressure may cause wear and tear, and is most likely to have an impact on land management. It is precisely in such areas that we shall want to ensure that arrangements are made for the effective management of access. We are, for example, making provision for the creation of new means of access, and for the appointment of wardens where appropriate.
Of course there are provisions for diversion of rights of way. I think that the Bill takes into account the problem that the right hon. Gentleman said was confined to a small minority of cases—but I see that he is anxious to respond.

Mr. Wigley: My point was that the access might not go through the curtilage of a house, but might be close to it. Surely the fact that a house that has enjoyed quiet in the past suddenly becomes part of a "honeypot" area will have an effect on its value. The question of compensation must then arise.

Mr. Meacher: There is provision for diversion of rights of way, and that applies particularly to "honeypot" areas. If there arc problems such as erosion of land or damage to tracks or paths, the Bill provides for closure, restrictions or diversions. I assure the right hon. Gentleman, who did not have the opportunity to sit on the Committee, that the Bill takes adequate account of such problems.
It is always useful to have officials nearby. I am informed—in answer to the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham—that clauses 19 and 33 are relevant.

Mr. Garnier: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Meacher: No. I am going to make my case. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman can return to his point later.
The statutory countryside bodies, the national park authorities and other local authorities will all have a part to play in helping to ensure that the new right is implemented and managed in ways that are sensitive to the needs of those who own or manage the land. Through positive management and promotion, including public


funding of the means of access and the appointment of wardens where necessary, any potential adverse impacts can be effectively minimised.
Although I would expect Conservative Members to focus on the perceived costs of the new right and understand why they have done so, I hope that they also recognise the potential benefits—not only the generation of extra income, but reduced costs for some owners. For example, landowners who have tolerated public access on a de facto basis—a number have done; so—will benefit from reduced occupiers' liability. Where the land is popular with walkers, the provision of wardens would be expected to help to reduce costs.
The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), the right hon. Member for Caernarfon and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised the question of the risk of a decline in land values. Indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough drew attention to the retention of powers for access orders under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which provides for compensation. We are continuing with those access orders.
The point is that the 1949 Act provides for compensation in relation to specific sites or areas where landowners have refused to enter into access agreements. Access orders are therefore highly discriminatory and, as such, compensation is provided; but the Bill will apply to extensive areas of certain types of open country. Hence it does not discriminate between different owners. We therefore do not expect land values to be affected significantly.
What we propose is not without precedent. The Law of Property Act 1925 contained no provision for compensation when it introduced a right of access to the so-called urban commons, many of which are anything but urban. So far as I am aware, the absence of provision for compensation attracted little comment in the 1920s despite the creation of a much wider right of access, including for horse riders. The Act did not contain the same restrictions or provision for closures as this Bill. More recently, under the previous Government we had the example of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, which does not seem to have given rise to arguments about compensation.
I entirely accept that there is a balance to be struck between the public interest and private rights. We accept that there may be a minimal interference with the private property rights of some landowners, but that very limited interference has to be weighed in the balance with the right of millions of people to enjoy—without doing any harm or damage—extensive areas of open countryside. We believe that a fair balance has been struck, in accordance with our obligations under the European convention on human rights, without any requirement for compensation.
The Government's position is clear. We have gone to considerable lengths to avoid placing burdens on land managers and owners; some people may think that we have done a little too much to accommodate their concerns. I accept that the result is a right that is limited and constrained, but I believe that those who will benefit from the new right will accept those limitations. The

balance is difficult to strike, but I believe that we have got it right. For all those reasons, I ask that the new clause be withdrawn.

Mr. Garnier: I shall respond briefly to the points that have been raised. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) for their constructive contributions. As always, I found it interesting to listen to the Minister, but his response was not terribly helpful. Indeed, trying to engage him in an argument was rather like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling.
11.30 pm
The Minister complained that my contribution to the debate was lengthy, legalistic and esoteric, but if he is not prepared to listen to legal arguments about the construction of laws in Parliament, I really do not know where we are. I appreciate that there are some members of his party who, having won the 1997 election by a massive majority, thought that it was an appalling constitutional device that we should debate laws at all. None the less, that is what we in the Opposition are here for, and I shall keep the Government up late at night if it is in the interests of the public to have their laws sensibly considered. [Interruption.] The babes want to go to bed, but they will have to wait a little longer.
The difference between general compensation and other compensation is not fully appreciated by the Minister. He relied on clause 33 for his arguments, but if he read it a little more carefully rather than depending on notes flying across the Bench from his parliamentary private secretary, he would see that clause 33(1) makes it clear that the agreements are discretionary, in that the access authority may pay compensation.
The right hon. Gentleman ought also, before he came to the Chamber, to have read section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which provides a statutory right to damages for victims.

Mr. Hogg: The Minister referred us to clause 33, and it was good of him to do so, but he will have noted that it gives no right to compensation in respect of diminution in value; it covers only a range of out-of-pocket expenses. As my hon. and learned Friend says, it is dependent on there being an access agreement; furthermore, the payments are discretionary. Nothing in clause 33 enables a farmer or landowner who has paid out money to require anybody to reimburse him or her.

Mr. Garnier: Under section 8 of the Human Rights Act, the court may award damages to victims of behaviour that contravenes the convention. If the Government want to waste a lot of taxpayers' money on having people such as my right hon. and learned Friend and me, and indeed the Prime Minister's wife, appear in the courts of this land. I look forward to that, but taxpayers would think that their money was better spent elsewhere.
The Minister said that there may be benefits for some landowners under the access provisions, although I was not convinced by any of his examples. I appreciate that the arithmetic is against me this evening and that many overtired Government Members want to pop along to their


beds. For that reason, I shall ask permission to withdraw the new clause, but I warn that the Bill has yet to get to the other place, where it will receive proper and full scrutiny from Members of all parties and from Cross Benchers. If the Government think that, in the upper House, they can get away with the poverty of argument that they have attempted to advance this evening, they have another think—and many votes—coming. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 62) on Private Finance Initiative (HC 458), which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Question agreed to.

Taxation (Government Codes of Practice)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Mr. Oliver Letwin: The Economic Secretary and I have both had a long day in the proceedings on the Finance Bill, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will share the delight when I say that I have no intention of prolonging our proceedings unnecessarily.
The reason for the debate is a sequence of events, which I first raised in a debate on the Floor of the House, about clause 102 of the Finance Bill. That clause has a particular effect. By bringing into play schedule 30 of the Bill, it seriously adversely affects companies that either do or might have their headquarters in the United Kingdom—multinational companies with a range of international subsidiaries.
Of course, the subject of my Adjournment debate is not the substance of that measure, but the process that led to the inclusion of the clause and schedule in the Bill. The Government, perhaps unguardedly, issued a splendid document when they first came to power. It is probably one among many. It purports to be a code of conduct for the Government in implementing new tax measures.
With the substance of the code itself, I have no quarrel. It is an admirable code; it says many sensible things. By far the most important thing that it does is to impose on Ministers—it was, of course, Ministers who were responsible for its production so, through it, Ministers imposed upon themselves—the admirable duty to consult when introducing new tax measures.
When we inspect the notes on clauses that accompany clause 102, we find that Ministers announced that they had conformed to the code of conduct and consulted widely on the measures being introduced. The strange thing is that, in a certain sense, that is absolutely true. The Inland Revenue did, indeed, consult widely on the measure in question. Unfortunately, however, the way in which it consulted on the measure was to ask whether it should carry out either of two actions, A or B. For the purposes of the debate, it is not material what A or B are. They have been sufficiently exposed in my remarks and in those of Ministers during Committee proceedings on the Finance Bill.
What Ministers proceeded to do in their Bill was C—an action entirely different from A or B, about which Ministers consulted. Those who were consulted were, broadly, all the large industries and the major representative bodies in Britain—the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Association of Corporate Treasurers, the Chartered Institute of Taxation and so on. They were consulted about two things, neither of which were the things that Ministers went on to do. Those are, I think, undisputed facts. As a consequence, those bodies were consulted only in name.
If the code of practice means that Ministers must engage in a process called consultation, where the question they ask has no bearing on what they actually intend to do, that code is a set of words or a set of spin—if I can use that word in the context of recent events—but it is without substance. That is one option that the Economic Secretary has in replying to the debate.
The Economic Secretary may wish to say that I and others mistook the purpose of the code—its sole purpose was, in fact, to present the appearance of a set of rules without substance—and that Ministers were, therefore, thoroughly justified in consulting about things that they had no intention of doing. They did not actually do those things, despite the words of the code, because the code is not to be taken as anything more than mere appearance.
I doubt that that is the defence that the Economic Secretary will wish to use, but I admit that it would be a rational defence. We would all then know where we were. We could solemnly stand up, tear up the codes and explain to the public at large that, although there is a code, it is not a code—it does not mean anything because the propositions in it are without substance. There is another possibility, which is that the code has a meaning and substance, and that it does mean something when it says that Ministers have to consult.
As an earnest seeker after truth, I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary to ask a series of questions, particularly whether there were administrative sanctions that would give the code substance, and what the role of the accounting officer—in this case, the permanent secretary to the Treasury—would be if there had been a contravention by the Government of the Government's code. I did not add to that question—perhaps it was an oversight—" on the assumption that the code has substance and meaning". I rather took it that, as between the Cabinet Secretary and me, there would be agreement that if the code had been issued by the Government, there was a presumption that it had substance and meaning.
In the way of these things, very often it is impossible to find anything so parodic as real life, and this was one such a case. There is, as we know, the splendid programme "Yes, Minister", and there is, as we all know, the wonderful character Sir Humphrey. Many people believe that Sir Humphrey is an exaggeration of what really happens, and that "Yes, Minister" is a parody of what really occurs. However, in his response to me, the Cabinet Secretary showed that the parody lies in reality and that Sir Humphrey is merely a pale imitation of reality.
The Cabinet Secretary did not take very long to reply; he was admirably prompt. Nor was he verbose in his reply; his reply was admirably concise. Nor was he obscure in his reply; his reply was admirably clear. Nor, however, did he in the least reply in substance to my inquiry. What he told me was that the Government had decided that the Government had fulfilled their code of practice, and that, therefore, I should put my mind at rest.
This is a splendid state of affairs. Sir Humphrey does not tell us that he thinks that the Government have obeyed the code of practice—far from it. I suspect that the Cabinet Secretary—who I take it is one of the most distinguished people in the country—was very carefully advised. Almost certainly, if the code had any substance, the Government had broken it. Therefore, far be it from him to say that he thought that the Government had obeyed it.
Nor did the Cabinet Secretary tell me what an accounting officer would do, or whether there were any administrative sanctions. I take it that he did not answer those questions because, as I suspected, there are no administrative sanctions and there is no role for the accounting officer. I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary

knows those things very well, and that he was, therefore, very careful not to tell me anything except the strict and literal truth—which I am sure is the strict and literal truth—that the Government consider that the Government obeyed the code of practice.
I should like at some time to have an opportunity in the House to debate a new variant of the highway code—the Letwin variant of the highway code. The difference between the highway code as it is and the Letwin variant is that, under the Letwin code, it will be not be policemen or magistrates, but Letwin who decides whether Letwin has obeyed the highway code. I offer you the prospect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there will be very few occasions indeed on which Letwin judges that Letwin did not obey the highway code.
If all we have in this code of taxation is Ministers judging whether Ministers have obeyed the code—and if there are no administrative sanctions, no role for the accounting officer and no method of monitoring; hence, if the code itself has substance, the substance can be contradicted in practice with impunity—we have not a code, but a farce.
The reason that I raise this issue—apart from the fact that, in this particular instance, it is of signal practical importance—is that the measures in question, on which we were not consulted within any ordinary meaning of the term, will have the effect of destroying a very large part of the British economy. However, I raise it not only for that reason of substance, but because it calls into question all the other codes that have been produced by the Government.
It is my intention, following the Minister's response to this debate, to inaugurate a series of investigations, and to seek to persuade Select Committees to inaugurate a series of investigations, into the way in which the Government have treated their own codes of practice more generally. I think that that is a fruitful line of inquiry. We have already begun to discover that the hallmark of this Government, who have done some good things, is that their explanation of their own prowess vastly exceeds their delivery.
Before the election, the present Government made enormous play of the need to revolutionise the conduct of Government—to clean up their act. When they came to power, they tried to fulfil that promise—or to appear to do so—by issuing a huge new set of rules that would govern their conduct and ensure that they acted in a proper spirit. Now, some years later, we discover either that this particular set of rules, and presumably others, are a mere facade, or that they have meaning, but are wholly unenforceable and hence a farce in practice and in relation to a matter of the gravest importance. That is the charge and I look forward to seeing how the Economic Secretary, albeit at a late hour and after arduous work earlier in the day, responds to it.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): It gives me great pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and I assure him that, as far as I am concerned, the night is but young. Before I reply to his comments and questions, let me say that I find it curious that he is raising a subject for which he has Front-Bench responsibility, although he is obliged to introduce this debate from the Back Benches. As it would not be proper for me to do otherwise, I remark purely on the curiosity of that fact.
Hon. Members will recall that during the debate on clause 102 of the current Finance Bill in Committee of the whole House on 3 May the hon. Gentleman made a series of accusations against the Government. He said that the Government had consulted on two different proposals and had then introduced neither of them, but had done something quite different. He repeated those allegations here tonight.
In March 1998, the Government announced a review of the system of double taxation relief for companies. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that this was the prelude to extensive consultation with business. In our previous debate on the subject, he called it
one of the more extensive consultations that has been carried out in respect of any tax measure in the Bill.—[Official Report, 3 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 221.]
It was gratifying to hear that and he repeated similar points this evening.
Then, as tonight, the hon. Gentleman went on to criticise the consultation process. To be more precise, he alleged that the discussion paper that the Inland Revenue published in March 1999 had invited business to say whether it preferred offshore mixing of foreign profits on the one hand, or onshore pooling of foreign profits on the other, as ways of averaging the rates of tax paid in foreign jurisdictions by the subsidiaries of UK multinationals. He went on to say that the outcome of the review showed that the Government's code of practice on consultation had been contravened, as the Government did something quite different—by not introducing onshore pooling and by tightening up the existing rules on offshore mixing.
At this point, it is necessary to see exactly what the discussion paper said, and to look at it more widely than the hon. Gentleman did on 3 May when he quoted a few passages, which he unfortunately did not understand.
Paragraph 3 of the introduction to the paper said:
A number of people suggested that, because the review was intending to consider the basic policy issues that underpin systems of double taxation relief generally and in the United Kingdom in particular, it would be helpful to have a document which focused on policy issues in a relatively high level manner. That is what this discussion paper is intended to do.
The paper was deliberately pitched at a "relatively high level". It did not purport to place the details of every option on the table—quite the reverse.
Chapter 3 of the March 1999 discussion paper looked at the economic arguments concerning double taxation relief. It discussed the concepts of capital export neutrality and capital import neutrality. A policy of favouring CEN would lead to support for the credit method of relieving double taxation, which the UK has traditionally adopted. A policy of favouring CIN would lead to support for the exemption method, which the UK has never used.
The paper, in paragraph 3.16, came down in favour of CEN and, consequently, in favour of the credit method. It said that that had the advantage of going some way to achieving CEN for the UK economy. However, that left plenty of questions unanswered about the details of the precise form of the credit method that the UK should adopt.
It does not automatically follow that the UK, when using the credit method, should undertake to give credit for every penny of foreign tax paid, irrespective of the

rate at which it is paid. That could be done only if some of the foreign tax was, in effect, credited against UK tax payable in respect of UK activities. That would lead to full CEN for profits repatriated to the UK, but, as noted in paragraph 3.22 of the paper,
there would be an open-ended Exchequer cost (subject only to the amount of United Kingdom tax payable before any DTR). There would be more UK outward investment to countries with higher tax rates than the UK, and the foreign tax credited on that investment would be a national welfare (economic) loss.
Those points were elaborated in paragraphs 3.23 to 3.25 of the paper.
Although the economic arguments favoured CEN and the credit method, the paper took the economic arguments further and looked at the precise form of the credit method that the UK should adopt. The economic arguments came out against a system that would undertake to give relief for all foreign tax, irrespective of the rate at which the foreign tax had been paid.
Against that background, chapter 6 of the paper was devoted to offshore mixer companies and onshore pooling. It noted that there were arguments for and against both systems. A number of reservations were expressed about the use of offshore mixer companies. Paragraph 6.12 noted that they allow relief to be given for foreign tax that is paid at a rate in excess of the UK rate. Paragraph 6.13 stated:
The use of a mixer company enables a United Kingdom company to have more relief for underlying tax than would be the case if it owned each of its sub-subsidiaries directly rather than through the mixer company.
Paragraph 6.14 noted:
The ability of companies to mix underlying tax … will influence the way in which groups structure their overseas interests. In principle, this can constitute a tax-driven distortion of the way in which groups would otherwise structure themselves for commercial reasons and hence setting up these structures can be seen as a compliance cost.
Paragraph 6.15 stated that mixing
can also encourage a group which has highly taxed income to divert investment to low tax countries, and vice-versa, to achieve the right blend of highly and lowly taxed income which will enable all foreign tax to be relieved and lowly taxed income to be sheltered from United Kingdom tax by foreign tax paid in a high rate country.
Those are the arguments that the Government have followed in explaining why we think that the use of mixer companies to avoid UK tax on low-taxed foreign profits should be restricted.
Paragraph 6.16 of the Inland Revenue paper noted that, because mixing increases the amount of foreign tax for which relief can be given in the UK, it can take the UK's DTR system closer towards "full credit" than would be the case if mixing did not take place, and hence closer to achieving CEN.
That economic argument in favour of mixing was immediately balanced by another economic argument against it, namely that mixing may also create distortions through an incentive to invest more in low-tax countries to obtain the advantage of extra DTR in respect of income from high-tax countries.
Paragraph 6.16 also noted that there were issues about Exchequer cost and the sharing of tax revenues between the United Kingdom and higher tax jurisdictions. Therefore—this is a key point—the paper noted that there were economic arguments for and against the use of mixer companies. Arguments of a more technical nature were also noted, including reservations about mixer companies.
Chapter 6 of the paper went on to discuss onshore pooling. The various forms that onshore pooling might take were discussed, and the paper mentioned the technical and economic arguments for and against onshore pooling. The arguments were similar to those concerning offshore mixing.
Chapter 6 concluded in paragraph 6.32:
Mixer companies have been in use for a considerable number of years. Multinational groups have structured their overseas interests accordingly. Relief for underlying tax, which mixers facilitate, of around £4bn is allowed each year. Both mixer companies and onshore pooling present a number of interesting and complex issues of both an economic and a technical nature. It will be important for the future to strike the right balance between them.
That paragraph says clearly enough that it would be important for the future to strike the right balance between the
interesting and complex issues of both an economic and a technical nature
concerning mixer companies and onshore pooling. Certainly, as I have indicated, the paper went out of its way to discuss the pros and cons of both.
The hon. Gentleman, however, prefers to read the final sentence as if it said "It will be important for the future to strike the right balance between mixer companies and onshore pooling." That is a meaningless concept. One cannot strike a balance—let alone the right balance—

between two systems that purport to do the same thing, especially as the paper pointed out that the arguments for and against offshore mixing are much the same as those for and against onshore pooling. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has either misread or misunderstood the passage.
One can, however, strike a balance between the arguments for and against the two systems. The issue is whether the Government have struck the right balance in deciding in favour of restrictions on the use of mixer companies. The proper place to discuss that, of course, is during a debate on the Finance Bill. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has already had one opportunity to do so on the Floor of the House in a Committee of the whole House.
The hon. Gentleman claims that the March 1999 Inland Revenue paper "Double Taxation Relief for Companies" offered business a choice between two particular systems of double taxation relief, neither of which turn out to be on offer. He is fundamentally wrong. The paper said nothing of the sort. It follows that there is no substance in the hon. Gentleman's accusations that the Government contravened the code of practice on consultation, and that the points that he made about administrative sanctions for such a contravention simply do not arise.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Twelve midnight.